Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roderick T. Long


 * 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. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  17:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Roderick T. Long

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

the subject fails wp:prof, and is non-notable. i can't find any reliable sources demonstrating that he's an important philosopher. Bob A (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been listed as an Anarchism Task Force-related deletion debate. скоморохъ  01:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Long is editor of the Journal of Libertarian Studies, he has books that are the subject of critical review, and he is a Senior Faculty member of a notable institution with a focus that is congruent with his area of scholarly expertise. He has published numerous articles, lectures, etc. at Mises.org and LewRockwell.com, both notable in their own right. Enough reliable sources are available (and currently cited in the article) to provide an encyclopedia article of some value to a reader seeking insight into who Long is and what he does. As the article notes, He has published with noted libertarian authors including fellow Ayn Rand scholar Tibor Machan. His work has been debated by Walter Block, Robert Bidinotto, and others. Notable authors citing Long's work include Stephan Kinsella, Richard Stallman, Walter Block, and Gene Callahan. DickClarkMises (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * being cited by a notable person doesn't confer notability. furthermore, stallman doesn't actually cite long; he only has a short critical comment about long's article about copyright. the (wikipedia) article doesn't say that he's a senior faculty member, so i would ask what institution that is. i would also ask what notable, independent writers have reviewed long's work. Bob A (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the Mises Institute's faculty listing, Long is a member of the "Senior Faculty." And Stallman's short piece names Long in the title, stating that Long's argument, and others like it, are useful for certain purposes related to the free information movement that Stallman supports and is himself notable for. DickClarkMises (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * the mises institute is notable, but hardly significant. Bob A (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How did the encyclopedia come to this conclusion, may I ask? DickClarkMises (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * i don't understand. Bob A (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Cited by numerous authors and has published a couple of books.-- TBC !?!  01:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete &mdash; all of the sources that the first nomination mentions are the product of a single think-tank. I'm not convinced he is exceptional as an academic, and is primarily notable within a fringe circle of political economists. --Haemo (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Stallman source is not related to the others. DickClarkMises (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - A prolific, frequently cited, scholarly writer and presenter, author of important works on edgy topics (class theory, feminism, collective property, etc) within libertarian philosophy; prolific, serious, and oft-cited blogger; editor of the Journal of Libertarian Studies; past scholar in residence at the Social Philosophy and Policy Center at Bowling Green State (which is a name to conjure with in at least some circles); archivist and translator of libertarian historical material; founder of the Molinari Society and Institute; Movement for a Democratic Society board member; left-libertarian activist; inventor of the "zaxlebax; etc. A no-brainer in my book. Libertatia (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Any independent sources available to verify those claims?-- TBC !?!  01:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * none of those things by itself makes him notable, and it's doubtful that they do together. the molinari society and institute are completely non-notable, and the "zaxlebax" thing is perhaps a textbook example of something you made up one day. Bob A (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You've admitted you're on some weird head-hunt for "anarcho-capitalists," (which is not, btw, how Long identifies himself) and are working against the consensus developed on the anarchist pages over the last couple of years. I wonder what it would take for you to acknowledge the notability of someone you disagree with? How many scholars can you name who are well-published on conventional philosophy and political philosophy, have organized regular events at professional meetings (Molinari symposia at American Philosophical Association meetings), produced translations, engaged in developing free archives of scarce material, networked effectively both within and outside of standard academic circles, who sit on the board of organizations of the present/historical interest of SDS/MDS? Long's CV suggests a well-rounded academic, of the sort universites prize. His publications from the Social Philosophy and Policy Center crowd don't emerge from some lock-step agreement on positions, which is one of the reasons that Long's name is one to conjure with in libertarian philosophy circles. But this is another instance where what is painfully obvious in actual academic circles is inadmissable on Wikipedia. Peers are dismissed as "not independent," without any substantive understanding of the circumstances of any actual relation. Etc. What a train-wreck. Libertatia (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * to answer your question, a source showing that he's a prominent philosopher. Bob A (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Those things all sound like evidence for notability. Can you cite sources documenting any of them? Binarybits (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. Manana, most likely. Though hitting some serious scholarly databases with "Long, Roderick T." and "Roderick T. Long," plus the names of the institutions involved will get it today. Libertatia (talk)
 * I've posted some links to some sources and search results concerning Long on the talk page of his entry. The bottom line for me is that I know I can walk across campus to the philosophy department, walk into any of a dozen offices where "libertarian philosophy" is spoken, mumble something about "Roderick" and "collective property" and most likely be understood. I could do the same thing on my blog. I happen to be acquainted with Long, through the internet, as are some of the folks over in philosophy. Our projects overlap. That's the way academic networks work, after all. "Independence" from the scholars who work in your field is always relative. In a field like libertarian history and philosophy, there are likely to be other organizational overlaps as well (political groups, think tanks, etc.) Long strikes as a pretty open-and-shut case for inclusion on Wikipedia two basic grounds: 1) his importance within an admittedly small field, libertarian philosophy, which seems to be indicated by (rather than against, as some are claiming), but his close and repeated collaborations with notable scholars and institutions in that field; and 2) the breadth and diversity of his scholarly activity (books, journal articles, a very scholarly blog, translations, the organization of symposia, historical archiving) which is certainly over and above the output of most of my university colleagues. An academic who produces lots of work, effectively transcends the academic/popular divide strikes me as notable. I have not included links to proprietary databases, since they wouldn't work for most folks, but Long does have a number of listings in the Philosopher's Index and some of the citation indexes. Much of that material is contained in the Google Scholar search. Libertatia (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Those sites mostly demonstrate that he's prolific, but prolific isn't the same as notable. The question is whether some of his many works have been more widely cited than run-of-the-mill academic papers. The Google Scholar search, for example, seems to suggest that Long's most-cited work has been cited 12 times. For contrast, here is a Google Scholar search for an academic here in Missouri I happen to know. His most-cited work has 161 citations, and he has about 20 papers that have been cited more often than Long's top-cited paper. Yet he doesn't have a Wikipedia page, and I think it's debatable whether he meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. Long is reasonably well known within his very narrow field of LvMI-style libertarian philosophy, but if you slice things narrowly, every academic is well-known in some sub-specialty. Binarybits (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - There are no non-trivial independent sources cited. Most of the cited sources have close ties to Long. And the one who doesn't (Stallman) doesn't actually discuss him in any detail. Binarybits (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per DickClarkMises. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  02:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep -- He is a respected philosopher of Aristotelean leaning with several books (various publishers), many publications, etc. A quick Google search would easily reveal to all of you that he meets the standards for notability -- i.e. "the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor".  In fact I stumbled across this page because I am citing him in a Law article and wanted to know more about him.  Much more importantly though, the apparent reason that this is up for deletion is because a group of people are trying to use Wikipedia as a political tool.  It is apparent from their edit history and their web pages that people like Bob A and Binarybits have a personal ax to grind with anyone affiliated with the LvMI.  Indeed, a quick google search would reveal, e.g., the running flame war between Cato people, like Binarybits, and LvMI people like Long.  I am very serious about Wikipedia being a authoritative encyclopedia and I don't take kindly to people trying to use this website to promote some partisan or personal agenda. The article needs to be kept. The morgawr (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You'll notice that I didn't propose the deletion and listed myself as a weak delete. Binarybits (talk) 04:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * morgawr, you do not help your case by making baseless accusations against other editors. Please assume good faith unless you have proof that this AfD was made in bad faith.  Either way, Binarybits did not propose the AfD, and appears to have an open mind on the issue. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  04:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, it is my professional opinion, as a law journal editor, that Long qualifies (on the low end of) "notable". It is also my professional opinion, as someone very familiar with how academic rivalries work, that there is something extremely fishy going on here.  I am pointing out the facts; others can make an independent judgment, but the facts need to be considered and not ignored.  What I have set forth is an exceedingly strong circumstantial case in any court of law.  People have been convicted of murder and executed with less evidence. Hence I find your claim that these accusations are "baseless" perplexing to say the least.
 * My particular concern here is this: Many journals use a triage system when they are evaluating articles.  This is especially true for legal journals, an area where many of these people publish interdisciplinary work.  The way the system works is that authors are categorized using notability.  A typical division would be "very well known", "notable", "law faculty", "student/practitioner".  When filling slots for publication, the journals go in order. Hence, more notable people get preferential treatment during article selection.  Since the wikipedia notability requirements are the same as the requirements for most journals, many use wikipedia as a substitute for independently evaluating the notability of a submission's author.  The result is that a notability evaluation on wikipedia can have an enormous impact on a scholar's ability to publish.
 * Looking at the edit history on these articles, there are a small group of people who are making large numbers of negative edits to the pages of people affiliated with the LvMI. This behavior has gone on for several years and has involved similar requests for pages of people similarly affiliated, e.g. Stephan Kinsella. It so happens that many of the editors are affiliated with a rival institute that has an ax to grind.  Consequently, they are most likely biased (or at least likely to appear biased) and hence have little business editing these articles at all -- let alone suggesting their removal.  If they were serious about improving the quality of wikipedia they would be incorporating information that isn't there to make these, admittedly poor quality, articles better, e.g., Walter Block's page doesn't mention that he is Ron Paul's economics adviser.
 * Given the fierce rivalries of many people in academia, we have to be extra cautious about making these changes based on biased or potentially biased sources -- the people involved can not only harm their "enemies", they can in the process help their friends by booting people from the "notable" pool.  Consequently, in the case of an especially nasty rivalry (like LvMI v. Cato), I worry that Wikipedia may devolve into a battle ground in the war that is academic politics.  Looking at the edit history of many of the relevant articles, I worry that it already has. The morgawr (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? Not only have I never proposed the deletion of a LvMI scholar's page, but as far as I can remember this is the first LvMI-related AfD I've ever participated in. I added a refimprove tag to a number of LvMI articles earlier this month because the quality of references seemed poor, but that's the extent of my participation. Maybe the reason people keep independently trying to delete these pages is because they're so poorly sourced. Binarybits (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Mr. Lee you are simply not credible. You are a participant in the bad blood between the institutes.  Despite your involvement in these disputes, you claim not to know who the people on the other side are.  Despite your very public anti-Paul stance, you want me to believe that you are not going after his economic adviser and other affiliates.  Sorry, there is a reason the rest of us in academia assume that anything said between the two groups is false.  You guys stopped being credible on this issue long ago. The morgawr (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't spend as much time obsessing over Ron Paul as you apparently do. I had no idea Long was his economic advisor. And again, I didn't propose this AfD and haven't participated in any others, so I still don't understand what point you're trying to make. Binarybits (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Mr. Lee, as you are aware from our discussion on Talk:Walter_Block, in which you suggested that Block was "not notable", Walter Block is Paul's economics adviser --- this is public knowledge.  Block is affiliated professionally with Long.  Your own blog indicates that you know all of this -- you participated in the most recent flame war between the two groups.  I am pointing out your inconsistency so that people can make their own judgement.  On the one hand, these guys were notable enough for the "big names" at Cato to get into a flame war with. It is simply not believable that you, as a minor participant in the most recent flare up, do not know who these people are or why they are notable.
 * The fact that I've criticized LvMI doesn't mean that I'm familiar with everyone who's affiliated with them. You might want to double-check the settings on your tinfoil hat. Binarybits (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * i did a google search for "roderick long philosophy" and the first real independent result was rms's comments. i couldn't find anyone not associated with liberalism indicating that he's a notable philosopher. the accusation that i "have an axe to grind" isn't relevant to afd. Bob A (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can do the same exact thing with leading experts in various fields: A. N. Yiannopoulos (Civil Law), Edward F. Sherman (Complex Litigation), Martin J. Davies(Admiralty).  Similar results are obtained for specialists outside of law, e.g. Kenneth L. Kaiser (EMC).  Mind you, these people are not just notable, they are at the top of their respective specialty.  By your "google test", they wouldn't be included in Wikipedia, and yet they clearly and indisputably pass the true notability test "the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor".  Long isn't the top of his field, but he is "more notable than the average college professor".  I know this because I asked around.  I confirmed it by doing detailed web searches -- what journals has he written in, on what topics, how relevant is he in his given specialty, etc.
 * you're the one who suggested a "quick google search", so i'm just pointing out that it fails. you still haven't provided any sources demonstrating long's notability. Bob A (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If this was an isolated incident, I would believe that you are simply grossly mistaken and uninformed about this field. But given the fact that you are going around Wikipedia targeting professors of a specific political leaning (see, e.g., Walter Block) I think I am more than justified in pointing this behavior out to people who might otherwise take you seriously. The morgawr (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be helpful if you incorporated some of that research you did into this article? If his work has been widely discussed by others in his field, let's see some citations. Binarybits (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * in my defence, i never marked walter block's article as non-notable. the reason i'm doing this is that "anarcho"-capitalists are over-represented on wikipedia, and so i'm making sure that the articles about the ones who aren't notable are deleted (even if i nominate a few that aren't). your behaviour appears to be a violation of wp:AGF. Bob A (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Assume good faith" means just that. It is an assumption until it is rebutted.  You are going around getting rid of articles about leading Anarcho-capitalists.  These are not "minor" people, but the leading American adherents of this belief system.  If you think the amount of content is unbalanced, then add more content for other people.  If the articles suck, then either fix them or mark them up for lack of references.  But, don't go around seeking the deletion of proper content dealing with an ideology that you don't like. Doing that turns Wikipedia as an ideological battle ground. The morgawr (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * i said that my aim was the deletion of improper content. this discussion is irrelevant to this articles afd page. Bob A (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason this is relevant is because things like your adding a not notable tag to the Block article, or your AfD request for this one are supposed to be based on a simple standard -- "the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor". It seems that you do not follow this standard.  That is a problem.The morgawr (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * i did not add a notability tag to the block article; stop saying that i did. long might be more notable than the average professor as a liberal, but not, as far as i know, as a professor. please give a source showing that he is. Bob A (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The diff disagrees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The morgawr (talk • contribs) 19:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * the diff clearly says that i added the argument "importance", not "notability" or "notable". unless, of course, you're blind. Bob A (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is my last $.02. Everyone knows my position, the rest of you have to make up your own minds.  Long meets that standard no matter how you cut it.  He is a senior faculty member at one of the two most prominent libertarian institutes in the country; he edits a journal; he has published books, is a prominent Aristotelian, etc.  If you ask someone involved in academic publishing, such as myself, we can call around and confirm this (and I did.)  Searching on Google Scholar (which is far from comprehensive), brings up a long list of citations for someone so young.  This is all very obvious stuff.  By the standards for "sources" posited by others in this debate, MOST LEADING SCHOLARS would not qualify for Wikipedia entries.  Some people have said that they are concerned that there are too many articles on this group of scholars.  But "too many articles" is not a notability standard.  "Too many articles" is an argument for merging them into "Notable X's" and then linking their names to the one article.
 * he's listed as a senior faculty member at the mises institute, which is a fringe organisation within american libertarianism, which itself is a fringe movement. many such people don't have articles, and i'm quite sure that not all of them need to. the journal he edits is also with the mises institute, and accordingly is not very important. he hasn't published any books, though he's written a few, none of them notable. you keep saying that he's a prominent aristotelian and the like, but you haven't given a single source to that effect. Bob A (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Finally, I want to remind everyone that Wikipedia has an important impact on a person's ability to publish, that this particular group of scholars is politically controversial, and that their enemies have a history of getting personal. We are supposed to NPOV in our articles, and we should be NPOV in our evaluations of notability.  The fact that people involved in this debate are potentially biased is relevant.  So is the fact that some people seem to be contradicting past actions or applying their high standards of notability with partiality.  People not involved in academic publishing might not be aware of the impact of this evaluation or of the nasty rivalries involved. Such knowledge would influence the evaluations of arguments posted on this page.  Hence it is relevant.  The morgawr (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * that's tantamount to a fallacious ad hominem argument.
 * Ad hominem is an attack on a person's character. The issue we are discussing is whether or not there is sufficient evidence for Long's notability.  What I have said is not ad hominem.  Per our own article:  "Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence."
 * that's only one sense of the word. the technical sense refers to an argument (argumentum), and in fact, i specified "fallacious ad hominem argument". i didn't say that what you said was ad hominem, but that it suggested something that's tantamount to it. furthermore, this discussion doesn't depend on any of our personal witness. Bob A (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * the discussion is about whether long is notable enough to have an article about him, not whether anyone is biased. we're all biased as hell politically, but that has nothing to do with whether long is notable. furthermore, this has nothing to do with "this particular group of scholars"; it has to do with long. Bob A (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You said otherwise on your own talk page. When asked about your motives for recent questionable edits, you said:
 * ...however, i am annoyed by wikipedians who are insistent that "anarcho"-capitalists be called anarchists, and that the ideologies be conflated, and by the fact that "anarcho"-capitalism and its proponents are over-represented.....
 * I have to say that I think this calls the propriety of this nomination into question. As I said at Talk:Roderick T. Long, it is pretty clear that this article subject is notable, and your mostly uncommented placement of various templates on the Long article and others discussing anarchocapitalists seem to be unwarranted behavior that isn't constructive in the process of growing and improving an encyclopedia. DickClarkMises (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * i said otherwise than what? this is irrelevant to the discussion. Bob A (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that you don't like the LvMI is totally irrelevant to whether or not Long is notable. It is entirely relevant to your claim that the LvMI should not be treated as source because it is not credible.  If you impugn the credibility of the LvMI as a source, we have a right to evaluate your credibility in making this claim.  I have examined you claims and found that you were wrong.  The LvMI is not "fringe" in academia (the relevant group), nor are libertarians in general.  Politicians like Ron Paul consider the LvMI extremely important, and most academics consider the scholarship coming out of LvMI affiliates to be good quality. In both Law and Economics the LvMI is turning out good scholars.  Randy Barnett got his start with them, so did many of the promising young free market types getting turned out of George Mason.  As I have pointed out previously, the requirement that we cannot consider any source affiliated with that person as evidence of notability is absurd.  Were that true, I could not prove that any of the above persons were notable, despite the fact that no one in that specialty area would contest it.  Hence your argument simply does not fly. The morgawr (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * the fact that the fact that i don't like the mises institute is irrelevant to whether long is notable was exactly part of my point. i never said that the mises institute shouldn't be treated as a credible source, and technically, that isn't even a claim; it's a preference. as far as i know (and i may be somewhat off), the mises institute is considered a crank organisation by most mainstream economists in much the same way that creationism is considered pseudoscientific within natural science. ron paul is very conservative compared to mainstream (as far as it is) american libertarianism. please cite a mainstream academic who considers the mises institute's scholarship to be of good quality. Bob A (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How about Gene Epstein at Barron's (formerly the chief economist of the New York Stock Exchange)? In a review of a book by institute scholar (and editor of the Man, Economy and State study guide published by LvMI) Robert P. Murphy, he said, I only wish Sowell were as informed about the economics of the Austrian school as author Robert Murphy. While Basic Economics and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism work well as companion volumes, in the few cases where they seem to disagree—as in the discussion of money and business cycles—Murphy's version is the more trustworthy. Again, we see your predisposition against LvMI coming up in this AfD. DickClarkMises (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Gene Epstein? who're they? anyway, that's not directly related to the mises institute. Bob A (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Epstein is unquestionably notable, regardless of whether he has a Wikipedia article. And I don't know what you mean by "directly related to the mises institute" with regards to your challenge about "mises institute scholarship." What is "mises institute scholarship" save the work done by Mises scholars? DickClarkMises (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * nothing, i supposed. Bob A (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. He is more notable than the average professor. morgawr makes some good points also (but also some very bad ones). Hazillow (talk) 05:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, without doubt. I've controlled google.books, and scholar.google , , and they seem to attest he is sufficiently notable for WP:ACADEMICS.--Aldux (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, per above. Sufficient external links and refs to lend him some notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fusionmix (talk • contribs) 00:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete This is not the sort of subject i really know, but claims to notability based on "he published an article with" or he contributes to blogs, or where the people citing have been citing as trivially as the ref from Stallman, make the whole thing look dubious. DGG (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2008 (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.