Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelly Kagan

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Shelly Kagan
Non-notable? Bart133 (t) 03:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Comment: About ten minutes after the VfD notice, the original author tried to blank this article, and about ten minutes after the revert, the original author tried to blank it again. I don't know if this means it's a candidate for speedy deletion, but FWIW, "Shelly Kagan" gets about 850 Google hits, most of which appear to be about a Professor at Yale University. --Deathphoenix 05:43, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Lean towards keep. Probably pretty notable, though the current article doesn't say why. He used to be on the faculty of the University of Pittsburgh, which is in the running for being the top philosophy department in the US. He left there because he is married to a midwife, who couldn't practice in Pennsylvania at that time. Then he was at University of Illinois at Chicago before taking his current endowed chair at Yale. To be honest, I don't know his work, but I went to college with him (Wesleyan University) and he was one of the sharpest people I knew as an undergrad. Given that and that his career trajectory has been duly impressive, I'd be surprised if a little research would not demonstrate notability. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:53, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I actually couldn't find that much biographical information on the web, and could substantiate only the UIC connection and not even the Pittsburgh one. Anyway, forgot to vote, so keep. JuntungWu 09:44, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I can attest to that from personal acquaintance -- I visited him there -- but I don't have written sources. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:56, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Clearly very notable. A five-minute look at JSTOR brought up several journal articles (not just reviews) written on aspects of his work, and even a "mini symposium" on Kagan's The Limits of Morality consisting of three papers published together in the journal Ethics in 1994. However, the present article reads just like an entry in a university directory, and I can't see the value of keeping it unless it is expanded. OTOH it was slapped with the VfD-notice two minutes after creation, which may have frustrated and confused some newbie planning to do just that. I don't like subsubstubs like this, but it should probably have been given a chance for a few days before being VfDed. I wish there were a way to suspend voting in a case like this, to make the author understand that keeping the article is entirely a matter of filling it with content and that the work is not going to be wasted if it is done. / up+land 07:02, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. No worse now than lots of other stubs, and there is no doubt that Kagan deserves an article. /up+land 16:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll try cleanup. JuntungWu 07:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Holding an endowed chair at an Ivy on its own clears the average professor test, exceeding most university presidents, politicians, executives, athletes, actors... Definite keep and expand. Samaritan 07:29, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This philosophy professor at Yale is well-known.  It is too bad we can't remove the VfD tag now, and let the person who was going to write the article get on with it.  Biographies need to establish notability, but lets not swoop in with the VfD tag minutes after an article is started, unless there is good reason to think the author is up to no good.  Assume good faith. --BM 15:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep this highly notable individual. &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 20:03, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable. Jayjg (talk)  22:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable, article needs expansion. Megan1967 01:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Notable philosopher with a couple of significant books to his credit. Capitalistroadster 08:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * keep'. notable.  Yuckfoo 01:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)