Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/John M. Cooper (philosopher)

Hello - May you please explain why do you assume that I did not performed WP:BEFORE while nominating this particular article for deletion? 1 delete !vote (nominator) and 1 keep !vote (creator) made you to close the discussion within 30 minutes as WP:Speedy keep? And what would you personally opine, if it were not you, on this edit, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FJohn_M._Cooper_%28philosopher%29&diff=602861498&oldid=602861318 diff. link]? One out of three lines FAILS VERIFICATION (see also, WP:MINREF). The actual article is,

John M. Cooper is a Professor of Philosophy at Princeton University and an expert on ancient philosophy. In 2012, he delivered the Tanner Lectures on Human Values at Stanford University. [Unsourced outstanding claims has been removed, no RS found by me].

I wonder, a more familiar editor with deletion process,, if would like to provide his opinion on this? Anupmehra - Let's talk!  16:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Any full professor at princeton is extremely likely to be notable, under both WP:PROF and the GNG, and either is sufficient--in my 7 years here, nobody with that position at Princeton of any comparable university has ever been deleted for lack of notability . In particular, holding a named chair at a major university does meet criterion 5 of WP:GNG, and all that is needed is a reliable source that they hold the chair. For such a claim, an official university page is fully sufficient, unless there is some actual reason to challenge it.  Again, in my 7 years here, I have seen only one official university page that proved inaccurate, claiming a PhD that had not been awarded (I spent hours double =-checking that one before concluding it could not have been correct) I have certainly seen many articles citing an official university page and claiming something that wasn't there, such as calling an assistant professor a full professor, and the like, but that's another matter.
 * With respect to WP:BEFORE, the slightest check for his publications would have shown something like this, with multiple books from the best university presses in the world, many held in almost a thousand libraries. Even his phD thesis is held in over 100 libraries, a remarkable distinction that I have never previously encountered. Even just google shows on the first page of results multiple independent published reviews, including even the Wall Street Journal. The 2nd p. adds the NY Times., and makes clear that there's also notability as WP:AUTHOR. By the third page, it shows his books being used in multiple courses at major universities, another criterion which by itself is enough for notability under WP:PROF.    WP:BEFORE means checking for such obvious sources. (Frankly, so many people carelessly limit a google search to the first p. of results that I wouldn't really blame anyone very much for not going further, but the  necessary material is even there)


 * I myself would probably have called it a SNOW keep, not a speedy keep. The difference as I see it is that a speedy keep implies a wholly irrelevant or bad faith nomination, and this nomination only shows that you did not know the relevant criteria and were careless in searching But a snow keep is appropriate when the discussion could not possibly come to any other conclusion, and indeed it could not have done so. But the effect is the same, and we closers frequently use one word when we mean the other. Many of us think it well to close an AfD which shows no evidence to check in the obvious places as Speedy, because it's basic deletion policy that we attempt to keep articles. (I would myself not have closed this as either snow or speedy, but that is only because I'm so much involved in discussions on the notability of academic faculty that I don't want it to seem that I'm closing on the basis of my own views.)
 * I greatly respect the work of in closing afds. True, we sometimes differ, but his closing record shows he's not inclined to keep things that shouldn't be kept.  DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks a ton, It was helpful. I'd be more careful further on. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  10:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)