Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Hatcher Davis


 * 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 no consensus. defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. After two relists and no clearly defined pro-Keep or delete comments it's time to close this. Based on the discussion I am not comfortable calling this a "soft delete." Ad Orientem (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

William Hatcher Davis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I tagged this article for proposed deletion and I was surprised that removed the tag based on the rationale that Davis's 1972 book Peirce's Epistemology has about 100 citations on Google Scholar. A mere 100 citations of only one book since 1972 does not make him "highly cited", which is one of the notability criteria for academics. Also, that was Davis's last book even though he was an academic for another 40 years. Here is my original rationale for proposed deletion, which is still valid: I was reading a book by this article's subject, William Hatcher Davis, and I decided to look him up. His obituary in the Elk Valley Times indicates that he died a year ago. I was about to add his birth and death dates to this article, but then I noticed that the article has been tagged for notability since February 2010. After some more research, I could not find any information that indicates that he meets the notability guidelines for academics. Therefore, per WP:DEL8, it is time for this article to rest in peace, just like Professor Davis. Biogeographist (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - Davis may meet notability requirements for an author based on reviews of his works. I do not have access to these reviews of The Freewill Question, but here are the citations : Exner, K. (1972). Davis william H.: "the freewill question" (book review). Meisenheim: Anton Hain, etc. and The freewill question (book review) (1973). . Madrid: Facultades de Filosofía de la Compañía de Jesús en España. And one for his more cited book Peirce’s Epistemology . The common names of these books make them hard to search in databases...maybe others will have better luck. If this survives AfD, this link may help fill some biographical details . Thsmi002 (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's worth pointing out that the reason why Davis's 1972 book Peirce's Epistemology has about 100 citations on Google Scholar is because the book's subject, Charles Sanders Peirce, is a notable philosopher who has been influential in multiple fields. Those who are citing the book are writing about Peirce, not about Davis. Biogeographist (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If they're talking about what Davis said about Peirce, then it counts in Davis' favor. That's one of the big themes of WP:PROF: academics can be notable through their work, as evidenced by citations and other indices, even if people don't lavish biographical attention on them. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've examined a sample of the sources that cite Davis's Peirce's Epistemology, and it appears to me that the sources that cite Davis's book are citing it as a secondary source on Peirce, or as an example of a book covering a certain topic in Peirce's work, not as an example of Davis having contributed original ideas that are widely discussed, which is the point of Criterion 1 of WP:PROF. Any one of many other secondary sources could be cited in place of Davis's book; see, e.g., Biogeographist (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In principle, he wouldn't have to have provided novel ideas; if his book were regarded as a definitive text on Peirce scholarship, then that would count in his favor under WP:PROF. However, I can't find any evidence that this is the case in this particular instance. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a hypothetical at this point since none of the criteria in WP:Notability (academics) appears to apply in this case, but if by "text" you mean a "textbook used in courses" (per Criterion 4: widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education) then Criterion 4 would apply. Biogeographist (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that if Davis' book were widely used in university philosophy courses, then WP:PROF would apply. However, I do not think that is the case, so as you say, it's all hypothetical at this point. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 17:39, 27 June 2018 (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.