Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophers Behaving Badly


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Philosophers Behaving Badly

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not Notable Wikimostafa (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * See also Mel Thompson / AfD and Nigel Rodgers / AfD, which all form a related group and may go the same way. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The entry is notable. Few Iranian Wikipedia writers are avid to delete this entry and everything associated with it. This is the second time this discussion takes place.Esmatly (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep It's reviewed in Times Higher Education and Philosophy Now (see article), as well as Library Journal, the Birmingham Post (UK) and apparently other places. That seems quite good for a philosophy book, meeting WP:NBOOK. Colapeninsula (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is no ground for proposed deletion. Esmatly (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Colapeninsula. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.