Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Palmquist


 * 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   delete. v/r - TP 14:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Palmquist

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested prod. This academic does not appear to meet the standards of WP:PROF. As far as I can tell he has received no major awards or honors, nor has he made a large impact on his chosen field (philosophy), nor has his non-academic work risen to the level of meeting the GNG. Ozob (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. He is a published author and there are 150 ghits at Scholar for "Stephen Palmquist".  The first result is a book he co-authored, "Kant and the new philosophy of religion", which is cited 11 times.  The first citation is in the book, "Transcending boundaries in philosophy and theology: reason, meaning and ... ", which is at google books, and can be searched for Palmquist.  The reference is on p.79.   Unless someone shows that all these references and citations are somehow bogus, I think that makes him notable per WP:CREATIVE.  But, then, I'm biased.  --Born2cycle (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how he meets WP:CREATIVE any more than how he meets WP:PROF. His work hasn't been the subject of an independent book or feature film, isn't a significant monument or in a museum's permanent collection, etc.  All he might qualify for "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" and "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique"—which is what WP:PROF is trying to measure.  I do not think the bar set by WP:CREATIVE for this type of subject is any different from the bar set by WP:PROF.  Are you saying that you believe he is a notable academic who does meet the standards of WP:PROF? Ozob (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the book in question is not Palmquist's research, he is one of two editors. Also, the use of WP:CREATIVE instead of the far more appropriate standard WP:PROF is very strange (and I agree with CRGreathouse below that he does not appear qualify under WP:CREATIVE).  --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For justifying use of WP:CREATIVE here, see #9 at PROF which states: "The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC." Also, WP:CREATIVE explicitly states that it applies to "..., academics,..., professors, ...".  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To which of Palmquist's contributions to literature, music, arts, etc. are you referring? As far as I can tell, he seems to be defined entirely by his academic philosophy work, for which WP:PROF is the most appropriate standard (a standard he does not meet), and by his political activism, which, says the article, has resulted in ... an academic philosophy book.  I do not understand how WP:CREATIVE is relevant, nor do I understand why you think he is notable.  Ozob (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Or, in other words, "writer" in WP:CREATIVE means "writer of fiction or literature" -- typical academic publishing of articles and non-fiction books is quite clearly not intended, whereas WP:PROF is specifically designed for this purpose. --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The WP:CREATIVE criteria are met by Palmquist. Just because someone is an academic does not mean that the only notability criteria they can be judghed on is academics.  Anyway he may actually have effected his discipline enough to be a notable academic.  This is a very difficult to determine area.  Since those who study philosphy tend to cite the works of philosophers and not the works of scholars studying philosophy the number of citiations to Palmquist is actually more encoraging that it would be in other fields where citing others works is much more common.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have the same question for you as I do for Born2cycle. See above. Ozob (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as the nomination has not convinced me that the encyclopaedia would be improved by losing this entry.  Skomorokh   08:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Appears not to meet WP:CREATIVE -- I would appreciate information to the contrary. But I don't know whether he qualifies under other guidelines. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Palmquist has published ~30 papers since becoming a professor in the mid 80s, but these collectively show a grand total of only 20 citations (h-index 3), which seems low for WP:PROF #1 even for philosophy. FWIW, this may simply be a vanity page because there's lots of WP:OR, and it was tag-team created by 2 WP:SPA accounts: Gosihaha and Stevepq. Agricola44 (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete?. A GS h index of 5 is too low, even for philosophy, to satisfy WP:Prof. WP:GNG does not seem apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete as insufficiently notable per the WP:GNG. No evidence this person has been the subject of in-depth coverage by multiple, reliable published sources. — Satori Son 04:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet WP:PROF as shown by Xxanthippe and Agricola. Publishing is what academics do, so that does not make him notable either. WP:CREATIVE is certainly not appropriate in this case. --Crusio (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. —Ruud 10:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. The Google scholar citation numbers certainly aren't high enough for criterion #C1, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2011 (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.