Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Gary Tedman

1972:

time can tell really for anyone, but we are only talking about notability, not mega stardom or Antonio Banderas-like status. Here we are dealing with Marxist Aesthetics, not blockbuster films. But I would still argue there is leeway in Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for notability that's sensible and does not reflect the delete comments 'vote stacked' here. The refusal to discuss seems to me to be politically motivated, for instance the studious avoidance of any discussion of quality, the resort to teenage type insults and provocations etc, all very like typical rightist trolling on blogs etc... By the way, conflict of interest is when you put the subject of the article ahead of Knowledge (XXG)'s interest, I do not think I have done that, I am writing all this in good faith, I like Knowledge (XXG), such a free resource is very good, but it takes work and time and serious thought, I don't see much evidence of that here. Aestheticinfo 19:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

626:??." There has been many discussions as to why Tedman is significant and these are available on the internet, but if you refuse to read them what can I do? Do you not understand the peer-review process, that the journal that publishes the work has "peer-review integrity", that his essays are listed on the "Taylor and Francis" site. All this is substantiated by the academic community. The listing on Google Scholar gives 19 citing? Again what is your criteria for "barely been cited" this is totally, vague and opionated but also without substance. Given this it sounds like the only "reliable source" that you know of is yourself. I find your comments slanderous of the integrity of the peer-review process and if they continue will report them as such. 722:

essays in top journals and in his book Aesthetics and Alienation, once again, I suggest, he advances new and original concepts regarding aesthetics. Again, this is mostly recognisable to those working in the discipline and given that aesthetics is a specialist and scholarly discipline such work is slower to come to the fore than pop music for example, yet I also suggest it is far more profound and consequential in the long term. It seems that there is a lack of interest in articles about serious writers but the search is on for media friendly type personalities and journalists and this is what is being qualified as notable.

1639:

relatively new and does not warrant reams of text, but the work is notable. I would suggest there is also a kind of notability sometimes created by a lack of publicity, quite strange in the circumstances, if you care to study them seriously. The popular media and the academy choose what they think is safe to look at and highlight but as we all know this is not always reliable, especially with challenging and new theories. This certainly is a theory of media, and by explaining what the media does in critical detail, can one expect the current media to celebrate that?

1254:(author) and presumably the criteria you are applying very strictly here could equally be applied to this writer. Also the same argument about sockpuppetry, where your friends all make the same argument, which may or may not be true, but from the point of view of Knowledge (XXG) criteria is not valid. Why are you so interested in this deletion? Can you clarify your reasons because I think mine fulfil at least the minimum criteria for inclusion. My worry is, that any interested party could place many borderline, dull, biographies such as 1131:

not been written about or referred to by a great number of writers, the ones that have referred to it find it extremely important and original and in this sense it is very influential. I feel this merits a certain notability in terms of quality and not quantity. The work has depth and is intense in a way, that many academics who sometimes just churn out papers in an inventory like fashion and without much substance, do not have. I hope you are able to understand the spirit of this decision. regards, signed aesheticinfo

1654:. We've shown you what is required and we've (believe it or not) heard these ridiculous arguments before. You're not going to get special treatment or special consideration or some special criteria by which this subject is assessed different to all others. Stop posting incoherent walls of text - you're not helping yourself. Read the guidelines and play by them of go and post your "information" somewhere else. 86: 888:"groundbreaking" and "brilliant" and these critiques can also be added to the article if you would like. We are not going round in circles, after the evidence placed in front of you either you don't have enough knowledge to judge the validity of this person's work or you have your own political agenda with regard to it. 1871:

of Knowledge (XXG) to have such information and references on their site and this is the most important issue here, as far as I am concerned. The general gist of this Afd page seems sided against articles with intellectual-philosophical content and related questions, it is important for Knowledge (XXG) to balance that.

925:. Thanks for pinging me, SmartSE. I can't find anything either--in MUSE, EBSCO, MLA. What is required for this person to pass PROF is evidence that the person has had an influence on the field. I cannot find a single review of any of his books, and while Google Scholar delivers a few mentions of his name (including in 726: 1984:

One consequence of COI is often that people cannot judge something objectively anymore and start to overestimate its importance. Then, if other editors disagree with them, it is clear that thus cannot be for any rational reason, hence they must be right-wing trolls. Funny, last week I was a left-wing

1258:

on Knowledge (XXG) simply to justify acting as a kind of gang with a political motive to "police" political entries that they disagree with. I am not accusing you of this but I have suspicions that it may be happening in some cases, so I say this openly. This would be bad for Knowledge (XXG) whether

812:

Personally, I don't think those sources make much of a difference - they are just normal academic discourse and citations. This discussion will run for at least a week and hopefully some other experienced editors will come and take a look as well. I will ask some with more expertise in the humanities

721:

Are you saying everything the subject has written and published as peer-reviewed needs to be mentioned in the article. This is not true of other Wiki articles. This is not an author who has published one of the millions of peer-reviewed essays published each year, this author has published 8 original

508:

IN ANSWER TO THAT THE PERSON HAS PUBLISHED MANY TIMES IN THE WORLDS LEADING JOURNAL FOR THIS SUBJECT 'RETHINKING MARXISM'. HE IS THE SECOND MOST FREQUENT CONTRIBUTOR TO THIS JOURNAL. ALL OF HIS TEXTS WERE PUT THROUGH THE PEER REVIEW PROCEDURE, WHICH IF YOU HAVE EVER HAD AN ACADEMIC TEXT PUBLISHED, IS

1870:

By the way my relation to the subject does not contravene Knowledge (XXG) rules on conflict of interest such as: "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Knowledge (XXG), that editor stands in a conflict of interest." because it is in the interests

1630:

The subject's work is antagonistic to the media, yet the media is the place that would determine coverage. It would be asking the improbable to expect the media to be very interested in this subject. Aesthetics is already not exactly part of mainstream media coverage or even the academic mainstream.

1413:

Aesheticinfo, I'm striking out your word "keep" above; you only get to say "keep" or "delete" once, in effect that is your "vote". "Rethinking Marxism" may be a scholarly peer-reviewed journal, but that's not the problem. The problem is the lack of any significant writing ABOUT Mr. Tedman, there or

653:

I included a link to where you can read about what is considered 'reliable' here. In short, it means books, newspapers and journals and for the purposes of demonstrating notability, they need to address the subject, rather than being written by the subject. There are millions of peer-reviewed papers

1727:

Also Libstar, saying "completely illogical" is not an argument, it is just a statement. Why do you, and others who want deletion completely avoid talking about the subject matter? And again, I need to say that lack of publicity does not mean lack or notability. You, along with most of the others on

980:

Keep. Your comments do not seem to be "in good faith" with the authors of this page who clearly have substantial knowledge of the subject. The ideas of the subject are well-known in the specialist field of Marxist Aesthetics (see wiki Marxist Aesthetic page)however some of his references such as in

543:

THE PERSON'S WORK FEATURES IN SEVERAL BOOKS. HE HAS A COLLECTIVE BODY OF WORK KNOWN TO THOSE WORKING IN THE FIELD OF AESTHETICS OR MARXIST AESTHETICS, OR IS WIKI ONLY INTERESTED IN FEATURING SUPERSTAR ACTORS OR BESTSELLER WRITERS I.E. PEOPLE WHO GAIN A GREAT DEAL OF EXPOSURE BUT WHOSE WORK IS OFTEN

1130:

Hello Randykitty and thank you for referring me to the deletion procedures page. I have decided to remove the deletion tag from Tedman's article, as is suggested is my right. I will explain the reasons why: I feel I am qualified within this field enough to know that although the subject's work has

1971:

On this goofy idea: well, there are plenty of figures in history who were considered not notable in their lifetimes who turned out to be, strangely, very notable later, like Vermeer for instance, died penniless and not in Knowledge (XXG) at all believe it or not. I think this is not healthy, only

832:". Are you saying these are not reliable sources, is it because they are normal? What extra-normal sources will you consider reliable? Why do you find work published in peer-review journals "unreliable", surely these are the most reliable sources and again please state what YOU do find reliable? 1081:

will write about his ideas. Please realize that all editors here are editing in good faith. Yes, perhaps you are more knowledgeable about this field than the other people here are, but those other people are obviously more knowledgeable about how and why things are done in particular ways at WP.

1068:

impact on his field. So, yes, he has a number of peer-reviewed publications, but publishing is what we academics do for a living and that in itself doesn't make one notable, only demonstrable impact does. To the SPAs (SPA=single purpose account) here, I would like to add that this is in no way a

1634:

The concept of the aesthetic level is an analysis of how feelings function in relation to the economic and the social. As Althusser's Ideological State Apparatuses enable an understanding of the methods by which ideology affects subjects in the political sense, the aeshetic level refers to this

1449:

One point about quality: Tedman's work challenges the media politically, it is not unlikely that the media dislikes this, and the media is the source of what is called 'coverage' above. 'Coverage' seems to be a term used in the media such as the popular press.Aestheticinfo 09:39, 18 August 2014

1700:

I've been on Knowledge (XXG) for several years and no argument has convinced me more of a case for a lack of reliable sources than the completely illogical "...there is also a kind of notability sometimes created by a lack of publicity..." It's as if this person has ironically admitted lack of

1529:

as we weren't really getting anywhere squabbling between ourselves were we? Asking other experienced editors was the sensible way to make sure I hadn't completely misjudged this. I can't recall interacting with LaMona, MelanieN, Traveling Man (Larry) or Bejnar in the past either, so they have

1717:

I have given reliable academic sources, to keep repeating this is not helping the discussion. Also please refrain from insults such as "longwinded". What is this "We" thing? It presents me as "the other" and you as the "in-crowd". I am finding this almost like racism. The issue of quality is

1518:

I notice that Smartse states earlier that he was going to ask other community members. This was clearly canvassing support for his own opinions which has prevented a correct discussion regarding the page. These members also repeatedly use abbreviations, which is confusing to less experienced

1976:

One point: in Marxist aesthetics especially and in aesthetics in general (in philosophy), there are very few authors who have presented a complete theory on this subject, right or wrong, good or bad, Marcuse perhaps, but you could not call this a theory, more a discussion. There is Adorno's

1638:

The coverage that exists is not in places where you would find it on-line, but exists in books and journals not freely available on the internet. I have more references that can be placed in the article but this would begin to make it too long in my opinion. I can accept that this person is

929:, where he's mentioned once), I don't see any substantial coverage of his work. Even if Zero was a well-established and reputable press (I had never heard of it and it doesn't have much of a presence), having a book published by them is not in itself a reason to assume notability. In short, 887:

Well this subject is never going to fulfil that criteria, firstly, he is not dead yet, and secondly 50 years are not up yet...You seem to bypass what Redcliffe Salaman has actually produced and give no reference to that in your reasons. The work of the author in question has been called

727:

http://books.google.fr/books?id=giHmlyzuE34C&pg=PA184&lpg=PA184&dq=%22Gary+Tedman%22&source=bl&ots=1SCNjFlZoM&sig=WYMbIGARL0AGrc41rZRQc3dEYc8&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=yBjqU8bzKMim0QXZ14CICQ&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCDgU#v=onepage&q=%22Gary%20Tedman%22&f=false

1351:

In Knowledge (XXG): Notability- General nobability guideline, it states; "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Therefore... See Knowledge (XXG):Identifying reliable sources: Scholarship -

557:

If you had really bothered to research the work of this person then you would easily be able to find these things out. I'm afraid I can tell that you have little knowledge of the subject or you would not really be making statements that in fact lack any real content.

1999:

I would call the statements and emotive insults on this page made by most of the editors, irrational. Any attempt to lead them towards making coherent or rational explanations are shouted down, ignored or called 'goofy'? Aestheticinfo 21:34, 22 August 2014

1642:

Just a word on the question of the reputability of Zero Books. Zero Books has a reputation for publishing a number of new radical authors such as Owen Hatherley and Laurie Penny, and it has been successful in this.Aestheticinfo 19:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

407:

I do not agree with your reasons. All the publications are easily variable. For example on Taylor and Francis site. I'm sorry it seems quite fake.I suggest You do not have enough knowledge on the subject matter to be able to comment on the validity of the

525:

THIS PERSON HAS DEVELOPED AND CONTRIBUTED MAJOR CONCEPTS ON THE THEME OF AESTHETICS. HE HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED WITH DEVELOPING THIS BY THE PEERS THAT HAVE REFERREED HIS WORK. HIS CONCEPT OF AN AESTHETIC LEVEL OF PRACTICE HAS BEEN USED AND SITED BY SEVERAL

413:

539:

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or

601:". This means that we require sources that discuss why Tedman's is significant and this is considerably more than simply being cited by other authors. According to google scholar, the works listed in this article have barely been cited either: 1623:

Is it an appropriate term for this subject: and for a person who is presenting a radical political position? Knowledge (XXG) criteria is not only concerned with "coverage". I say it again, it sounds like you mean popular media coverage.

1354:

Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic

1809:

Yes of course I have a connection with Gary Tedman. I have used his concept of an aesthetic level of practice to explain and analyse art and design, publishing several peer-reviewed essays and books on the theme. I also know

1635:

control on the level of feelings and mediation. Tedman has defined it using Marxist theory, Freud, Althusser and Walter Benjamin. It is a hugely neglected area with potential to open up a new territory for Marxist analysis.

655: 1283:, which requires that the person's own writing must have been significantly cited by other academics, as a way of showing that the person is a leader or influential in their field. Here is the citation record for Mr. Tedman 469:

explain what is required for an academic's biography to be included in Knowledge (XXG) and I am unable to find sources demonstrating that these criteria are met. Whether I have enough knowledge of the subject is immaterial.

1966:

This is amazing. You are all saying exactly the same things, and insulting. And refuse to enter into any real debate or conversation, and refuse to answer any of my questions. Its as if I've walked into someone's personal

1286:; it shows very few citations of his work by other people. So this guideline does not qualify him either. The result is that the article should be deleted as not meeting Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for inclusion. -- 654:

published every year but we do not aim to have a biography on each and every author. By 'barely cited' I mean that from what I can tell, those papers listed in the article have rarely been cited by other authors:

955:

Tedman's work is covered comprehensibly in the book Color, Facture, Art and Design, mentioned in the article, but if the text is not on-line how will you know this. Here is a link to a review of Tedman's book :

291: 666:

has 2. Publication and citation density varies greatly between fields, but unless there are citations elsewhere, I think most people would agree that this is few citations. I won't bother to respond to your

1472:

By the way, I wrote this entry. I am not the subject and the subject had no knowledge of it. I am not an institution or backed by any institution, I am independent. Aestheticinfo 18:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

1444:

I also suggest that many contributors to this delete page seem to come more from science backgrounds where the databases and the method of citation are different. Aestheticinfo 09:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

1977:'Aesthetic Theory' but this too is not really a theory. Gary Tedman's work is notable in this respect, on the left, though there is also Jacques Ranciere. Aestheticinfo 20:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 729:...are reliable sources, as Skeggs is a University Professor, but this does not feature on Google scholar, which I suggest isn't that much of a reliable source because of this type of occlusion. 1402:

for example. I suggest that Gary Tedman's work is at least parallel to that of Alan Marks in terms of notability. Why however do you merit that Tedman's article should be deleted? Likewise with

1455:

Sorry, I am new to this and will make mistakes. It would be nice if you would appreciate this. Yes I do realise that being new is not an excuse too! Aestheticinfo 11:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

828:

May I ask what you require other than "normal academic discourse and citations." are you looking for something other than normal? You have asked that the work be "substantiated through

1559:- publishing and being the subject of a publication are not the same thing. We require the latter and arguments that the subject is responsible for the former don't carry much weight. 347: 93: 1913:

I think the converse must be true, that is, too much publicity is kind of sign that an article must be deleted. I have zero connection to other editors or indeed your friend Tedman.

1441:

The main article on Tedman carries a number of independent citations of which there are others. It is true that there are not the amount that usually come with the strict sciences.

751: 1718:

important because in the end that is the only determinant. There seems to be an awful lot of people interested in deleting this article, for something so allegedly not notable.

1519:

community members such as myself. I notice again that the concept of "quality" of the work, seems totally omitted from the conversation.Aestheticinfo 22:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

1077:

have written. If Tedman's contributions are as valuable as you say, then I don't doubt that this will soon be evident (without waiting 50 years) in the citation record, because

367: 244: 1370:

also on Knowledge (XXG)"s reliable third-party sources: How to meet the requirement An article must be based upon reliable third-party sources, and meets this requirement if:

1210: 387: 285: 1073:

judgment. It is not up to us, WP editors, to decide what is important or not. As an encyclopedia, we do not cover our own judgments and opinions, but only what

860:

We're going round in circles and I still don't think you've grasped how we determine the notability of a subject. Taking an example of an article I wrote,

1367:

America: History and Life CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts International Bibliography of the Social Sciences VINITI Database RAS Scopus SocINDEX

1064:

the impact and number of citations, but in this case, that is actually revealing. The paltry citation record means that this person has not (yet?) made a

602: 725:

There are about 9,000 entries regarding the author and his work on Google. Some of these, for example Beverley Skegg's discussion of the author:

1161:, you may not remove that template. A decision to keep or delete will be made based on a community discussion (this one right here). Thank you. 752:

http://books.google.fr/books?id=KjKCKs1TO0UC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

251: 1534:

and made their own decision about the article. How is it possible for us to judge quality when there has been so little coverage? As editors

663: 1613:

We weren't getting anywhere because you and others keep repeating the same thing over and over without engaging in any genuine discussion.

659: 102: 1876: 1198: 1762:, then it is notable, too. Notability is not the same thing as "deserving", "quality", and such, only about whether something has been 450: 132: 1829: 1406:? ...however personally I see no problem with your listings, perhaps they could be of use... Aestheticinfo 08:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC) 1378: 1147: 1119: 1057: 997: 848: 800: 778: 736: 703: 642: 574: 446: 430: 1303:. Per OP and previous posters, there is insufficient evidence of notability -- either general or academic -- to warrant inclusion. -- 1284: 17: 1872: 1250:* I will say no more on this, whether to Delete or not Delete, but, Drmies, I note that you have made biographies of people such as 1811: 1729: 217: 212: 622:

I am sorry but I find this ridiculous. What do you call a reliable source? I ask you the question because you are very vague:

1893:. BTW, thanks for that gem about "a kind of notability sometimes created by a lack of publicity", that really made my day! -- 1279:

have written significantly about the person. That is not the case for this subject. The other is specifically for academics,

221: 1627:

There are references and reliable sources, in particular of high quality on the article page. You are ignoring these. Why?

118: 1600: 1538:

whether something is of quality or not, we follow the published sources (of which there are none discussing the subject).

306: 1415: 1060:), but there is no "Tedman G" in that database at all. In general, I'm not a big fan of GScholar, because it invariably 273: 204: 2017: 40: 1234:, they are about the topic area he works in. Therefore, there are no 3rd party references that establish notability. 762:

each of which base their ideas on Tedman's concept of an aesthetic level, but also not mentioned on Google scholar.

718: 91:

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is

1267:

We have two ways of determining whether we should have an article about a person. One is the general guideline,

1182:

I am familiar with the work of this subject and agree with Althusserian and aesheticinfo. Signed socrates12345

164: 755: 963: 759: 267: 1501: 1308: 1194: 1817: 1588: 1186: 1135: 1107: 985: 836: 788: 766: 732: 699: 630: 562: 418: 148: 122: 1825: 1467:

at numerous libraries including Harvard, Yale, Berkeley and Duke.Aestheticinfo 17:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

1382: 1143: 1115: 993: 844: 796: 774: 740: 707: 638: 570: 442: 426: 1774:. If you don't get acquainted with these things, then this AfD debate will remain mysterious to you... -- 1464: 107: 2013: 1940:" being one of the flat-out goofiest things I've heard here in many years, and that's saying something. 263: 36: 1994: 1985:

antisemite (although it is possible that that particular editor thought I was a right-wing Zionist). --

1959: 1922: 1902: 1880: 1854: 1804: 1783: 1747: 1710: 1686: 1674: 1666: 1604: 1582: 1571: 1547: 1509: 1427: 1386: 1339: 1323: 1312: 1295: 1243: 1222: 1202: 1170: 1151: 1123: 1095: 1044: 1017: 1001: 975: 950: 917: 881: 852: 822: 804: 744: 711: 680: 646: 617: 578: 479: 466: 399: 379: 359: 339: 327: 69: 208: 1990: 1898: 1779: 1091: 696:

I cannot see the link that demonstrates what is required as "reliable" can you show me this please.

63: 1327: 750:

See also work by Iona Singh, and her best-selling book, also not specifically mentioned on scholar:

1719: 597:

I am afraid that you have missed the most important part of the criteria "as substantiated through

313: 299: 1526: 1480: 1230:

There is only one citation, and it is not notable. None of the listed articles or books are about

462: 323: 1492: 1423: 1361: 1304: 1291: 1190: 957: 872:, further his substantial impact is shown by his book being called 'unprecented' 50 years later. 330:. I have searched for significant coverage of their work but haven't been able to find anything. 200: 154: 85: 75: 1651: 1918: 1850: 1821: 1800: 1743: 1706: 1682: 1596: 1543: 1403: 1158: 1139: 1111: 1032: 989: 913: 877: 861: 840: 818: 792: 770: 676: 634: 613: 566: 475: 438: 422: 395: 375: 355: 335: 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

2012:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

1890: 1280: 1086:) and hopefully you will then understand better the motivation behind the "delete" !votes. -- 754:

that discusses Tedman's concepts in a comprehensive manner. Likewise in the refereed essays:

35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

1656: 1561: 1377:. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, the more reliable the publication. 1364:

Abstracting and indexing This journal is abstracted and indexed in the following databases:

1335: 1239: 1218: 1166: 1040: 1013: 971: 946: 1842: 1531: 1272: 1268: 905: 829: 605: 598: 1986: 1894: 1775: 1087: 981:

the book Color, Facture, Art and Design are not available on-line. Signed Althusserian..

938: 55: 1864:

Question for SmartSE, Drmies, Randykitty, Libstar, Stalwart1111, LaMona, Melanie N Benjar

1771: 1535: 1276: 1083: 461:

I don't dispute that this is about a real academic but they do not appear to be notable.

279: 505:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

1941: 1936:

per our notability & verifiability guidelines, per now-self-admitted COI, and per "

1053: 1767: 1419: 1287: 1914: 1846: 1796: 1754:"Quality" is only indirectly important here. If something is very good, and people 1739: 1702: 1678: 1648:"...there is also a kind of notability sometimes created by a lack of publicity..." 1592: 1539: 909: 873: 814: 672: 609: 522:

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

471: 391: 371: 351: 331: 182: 170: 138: 238: 117:

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to

1331: 1235: 1214: 1162: 1036: 1009: 967: 942: 719:

http://scholar.google.fr/scholar?hl=fr&q=%22Gary+Tedman%22&btnG=&lr=

1052:

In addition to the databases checked by Drmies and others, I had a look at the

1399: 1483:

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

1330:, lacks significant coverage, lacks adequate notice in his own profession. -- 784:

Hello Smartse, can the article now be removed from 'articles for deletion'?

756:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08935690410001676212#.U-ofuuN_s4A

1938:

there is also a kind of notability sometimes created by a lack of publicity

760:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10455750601164642#.U-of4uN_s4A

1701:

notability. And please aesthetic info, no long winded response to this.

864:

is primarily notable due to the first two sources - an obituary in the

604:. I'd appreciate if you stopped assuming that I am acting maliciously: 1082:

Please read the policies that others have linked to above (especially

1259:

from the right or the left.Aestheticinfo 19:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

1373:

Reliable: A third-party source is reliable if it has standards of

1889:! We're all here to improve this online encyclopedia and promote 2006:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

1845:

guidelines. this explains your behavior regarding this article.

671:

and once again request that you discuss this in a civil manner.

624:

What do you consider "as substantiated through reliable sources

958:

http://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviewofbooks/reviews/2013/831

80: 900: 111:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, 1758:, then it is notable. If something is very bad, and people 1738:

like racism? your arguments are getting weaker and weaker.

1463:. Aesthetics and Aliennation. 2012. Zero Books. Listed on 1418:; that is not an argument that carries any weight here. -- 101:

among Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has

1255: 1251: 896: 234: 230: 226: 1211:

Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/Aesheticinfo

298: 866:

Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society

1490:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 348:

list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions

312: 1436:What do you mean by "we"? Am I not a part of 'we'? 933:is normal activity for any scholar; being written 2020:). No further edits should be made to this page. 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1398:I note Drmies that you have an article entitled 717:As you can see the subject is cited on Scholar: 368:list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions 492:Here is the criteria that you have referred to: 962:Please sign your messages, and have a look at 322:This person does not meet the requirements of 131:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected 8: 908:if they can have a look at this discussion. 388:list of Authors-related deletion discussions 386:Note: This debate has been included in the 366:Note: This debate has been included in the 346:Note: This debate has been included in the 1389:Aestheticinfo 07:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC) 1008:Well, that's not a very nice thing to say. 385: 365: 345: 105:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and 1873:Aestheticinfo 10:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 1812:Aestheticinfo 06:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 1795:do you have a connection to Gary Tedman? 1730:Aestheticinfo 18:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC) 1728:this page, continue to confuse the two. 1631:This does not mean it is not important. 1035:: this placed here for clarity's sake-- 544:NOT MERITED TO BE THAT GOOD OR ENDURING? 125:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. 1620:'Coverage'. What do you mean by this? 870:Oxford Dictionary of National Biography 1527:It was a notification, not canvassing 1414:anywhere else. Also, please also see 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 1760:write about that in reliable sources 1756:write about that in reliable sources 937:is what makes notability. But maybe 1617:There are a number of issues here; 1866:: Do any of you have a connection? 1058:Arts and Humanities Citation Index 24: 1103:Ok thanks. signed Aesheticinfo 84: 1: 1581:- Does not appear to fulfill 1375:peer review and fact-checking 781:) 14:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC) 662:has 2 (1 by the subject) and 121:on the part of others and to 1673:if there ever was a case of 1536:it is not up to us to decide 1277:independent reliable sources 1995:20:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 1960:16:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 1923:11:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 1903:10:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 1881:07:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 1855:07:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 1805:02:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 1793:Question for Aesthetic info 1784:18:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC) 1748:02:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 1722:17:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC) 1711:16:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC) 1687:09:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC) 1677:, aesthetic info meets it. 1667:22:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC) 1605:10:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC) 1572:02:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC) 1548:22:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC) 1510:19:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC) 1428:08:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC) 1387:08:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC) 1340:05:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC) 1313:02:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC) 1296:02:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC) 1244:01:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC) 1223:17:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 1203:16:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 1171:16:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 1152:16:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 1124:16:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 1096:16:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 1045:16:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 1018:16:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 1002:15:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 976:15:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 964:Knowledge (XXG):Indentation 951:14:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 918:14:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 882:14:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 853:13:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 823:13:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 805:12:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 745:13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC) 712:13:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC) 681:12:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC) 647:10:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC) 618:07:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC) 579:23:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC) 509:A LONG AND ARDUOUS PROCESS. 480:21:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC) 400:01:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC) 380:01:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC) 360:01:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC) 340:19:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC) 70:00:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC) 2037: 941:can find more than I can. 658:has 4 (2 by the subject), 1530:seemingly come here from 2009:Please do not modify it. 606:please assume good faith 32:Please do not modify it. 1891:a neutral point of view 433:) 21:11, 11 August 2014 163:; accounts blocked for 133:single-purpose accounts 103:policies and guidelines 1275:, which requires that 451:few or no other edits 1843:conflict of interest 1056:(which includes the 927:Class, Self, Culture 453:outside this topic. 1416:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 813:if they can do so. 115:by counting votes. 94:not a majority vote 1362:Rethinking Marxism 906:talk page stalkers 48:The result was 1834: 1820:comment added by 1608: 1591:comment added by 1512: 1508: 1404:Patricia Rinehart 1206: 1189:comment added by 1155: 1138:comment added by 1127: 1110:comment added by 1005: 988:comment added by 862:Redcliffe Salaman 856: 839:comment added by 808: 791:comment added by 783: 769:comment added by 735:comment added by 702:comment added by 650: 633:comment added by 582: 565:comment added by 454: 435: 421:comment added by 402: 382: 362: 196: 195: 192: 119:assume good faith 2028: 2011: 1957: 1954: 1951: 1948: 1841:please read our 1833: 1814: 1772:reliable sources 1663: 1661: 1607: 1585: 1568: 1566: 1506: 1504: 1498: 1489: 1485: 1205: 1183: 1154: 1132: 1126: 1104: 1004: 982: 903: 868:and an entry in 855: 833: 830:reliable sources 807: 785: 782: 763: 747: 714: 649: 627: 599:reliable sources 581: 559: 436: 434: 415: 317: 316: 302: 254: 242: 224: 190: 178: 162: 146: 127: 97:, but instead a 88: 81: 68: 66: 60: 59: 34: 2036: 2035: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2018:deletion review 2007: 1955: 1952: 1949: 1946: 1815: 1659: 1657: 1586: 1564: 1562: 1502: 1497: 1493: 1478: 1184: 1133: 1105: 983: 899: 834: 786: 764: 730: 697: 628: 560: 416: 259: 250: 215: 199: 180: 168: 152: 136: 123:sign your posts 79: 64: 57: 56: 53: 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2034: 2032: 2023: 2022: 2003: 2002: 2001: 1997: 1979: 1978: 1969: 1968: 1963: 1962: 1942:Andrew Lenahan 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1906: 1905: 1868: 1867: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1836: 1835: 1807: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1751: 1750: 1733: 1732: 1724: 1723: 1714: 1713: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1615: 1614: 1610: 1609: 1575: 1574: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1521: 1520: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1495: 1487: 1486: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1469: 1468: 1457: 1456: 1452: 1451: 1446: 1445: 1442: 1438: 1437: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1408: 1407: 1358: 1357: 1343: 1342: 1316: 1315: 1298: 1247: 1246: 1225: 1207: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1098: 1054:Web of Science 1047: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 978: 920: 885: 884: 826: 825: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 683: 588: 587: 586: 585: 584: 583: 550: 549: 548: 547: 546: 545: 541: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 523: 515: 514: 513: 512: 511: 510: 506: 498: 497: 496: 495: 494: 493: 485: 484: 483: 482: 456: 455: 410: 409: 404: 403: 383: 363: 320: 319: 256: 194: 193: 89: 78: 73: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2033: 2021: 2019: 2015: 2010: 2004: 1998: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1965: 1964: 1961: 1958: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1932: 1931: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1892: 1888: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1878: 1874: 1865: 1862: 1861: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1813: 1808: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1791: 1790: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1753: 1752: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1731: 1726: 1725: 1721: 1720:Aestheticinfo 1716: 1715: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1699: 1698:strong delete 1696: 1695: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1665: 1664: 1653: 1650:. Dude, just 1649: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1625: 1621: 1618: 1612: 1611: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1584: 1580: 1577: 1576: 1573: 1570: 1569: 1558: 1555: 1554: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1528: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1517: 1516: 1511: 1505: 1500: 1499: 1488: 1484: 1482: 1477: 1476: 1471: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1459: 1458: 1454: 1453: 1448: 1447: 1443: 1440: 1439: 1435: 1434: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1396: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1371: 1368: 1365: 1363: 1356: 1350: 1349: 1345: 1344: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1318: 1317: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1302: 1299: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1257: 1253: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1226: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1209:SPI filed at 1208: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1191:Socrates12345 1188: 1181: 1178: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1157: 1156: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1129: 1128: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1102: 1099: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1067: 1063: 1062:overestimates 1059: 1055: 1051: 1048: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1027: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1006: 1003: 999: 995: 991: 987: 979: 977: 973: 969: 966:. Thank you. 965: 961: 960: 959: 954: 953: 952: 948: 944: 940: 936: 932: 928: 924: 921: 919: 915: 911: 907: 902: 898: 894: 891: 890: 889: 883: 879: 875: 871: 867: 863: 859: 858: 857: 854: 850: 846: 842: 838: 831: 824: 820: 816: 811: 810: 809: 806: 802: 798: 794: 790: 780: 776: 772: 768: 761: 757: 753: 748: 746: 742: 738: 734: 728: 723: 720: 715: 713: 709: 705: 701: 682: 678: 674: 670: 665: 661: 657: 652: 651: 648: 644: 640: 636: 632: 625: 621: 620: 619: 615: 611: 607: 603: 600: 596: 595: 594: 593: 592: 591: 590: 589: 580: 576: 572: 568: 564: 556: 555: 554: 553: 552: 551: 542: 538: 537: 536: 535: 534: 533: 524: 521: 520: 519: 518: 517: 516: 507: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 491: 490: 489: 488: 487: 486: 481: 477: 473: 468: 464: 460: 459: 458: 457: 452: 448: 444: 440: 432: 428: 424: 420: 412: 411: 406: 405: 401: 397: 393: 389: 384: 381: 377: 373: 369: 364: 361: 357: 353: 349: 344: 343: 342: 341: 337: 333: 329: 325: 315: 311: 308: 305: 301: 297: 293: 290: 287: 284: 281: 278: 275: 272: 269: 265: 262: 261:Find sources: 257: 253: 249: 246: 240: 236: 232: 228: 223: 219: 214: 210: 206: 202: 198: 197: 188: 184: 176: 172: 166: 160: 156: 150: 144: 140: 134: 130: 126: 124: 120: 114: 110: 109: 104: 100: 96: 95: 90: 87: 83: 82: 77: 74: 72: 71: 67: 61: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 2008: 2005: 1970: 1945: 1937: 1933: 1886: 1869: 1863: 1822:Aesheticinfo 1816:— Preceding 1792: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1697: 1655: 1647: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1626: 1622: 1619: 1616: 1587:— Preceding 1578: 1560: 1556: 1491: 1479: 1465:Worldcat.org 1460: 1394: 1393: 1379:90.39.78.234 1374: 1372: 1369: 1366: 1359: 1353: 1347: 1346: 1319: 1300: 1264: 1249: 1248: 1231: 1227: 1185:— Preceding 1179: 1159:Aesheticinfo 1140:Aesheticinfo 1134:— Preceding 1112:Aesheticinfo 1106:— Preceding 1100: 1079:other people 1078: 1074: 1070: 1065: 1061: 1049: 1033:Althusserian 1028: 990:Althusserian 984:— Preceding 934: 930: 926: 922: 892: 886: 869: 865: 841:Aesheticinfo 835:— Preceding 827: 793:Aesheticinfo 787:— Preceding 771:Aesheticinfo 765:— Preceding 749: 737:90.39.78.234 731:— Preceding 724: 716: 704:90.39.78.234 698:— Preceding 695: 668: 635:Aesheticinfo 629:— Preceding 623: 567:Aesheticinfo 561:— Preceding 439:Aesheticinfo 423:Aesheticinfo 417:— Preceding 321: 309: 303: 295: 288: 282: 276: 270: 260: 247: 186: 174: 165:sockpuppetry 158: 147:; suspected 142: 128: 116: 112: 106: 98: 92: 49: 47: 31: 28: 1766:and we can 1675:WP:BLUDGEON 1583:WP:ACADEMIC 1324:WP:ACADEMIC 1256:Mary Hooper 1252:Mary Hooper 467:WP:ACADEMIC 449:) has made 328:WP:ACADEMIC 286:free images 201:Gary Tedman 76:Gary Tedman 1987:Randykitty 1895:Randykitty 1887:Absolutely 1776:Randykitty 1494:Rcsprinter 1400:Alan Marks 1328:WP:NOTEBLP 1088:Randykitty 1066:measurable 939:Randykitty 931:publishing 669:ad hominem 99:discussion 58:Salvidrim! 2014:talk page 463:WP:AUTHOR 392:• Gene93k 372:• Gene93k 352:• Gene93k 324:WP:AUTHOR 155:canvassed 149:canvassed 108:consensus 37:talk page 2016:or in a 1967:toyroom. 1830:contribs 1818:unsigned 1770:that in 1601:contribs 1589:unsigned 1481:Relisted 1420:MelanieN 1355:presses. 1326:, fails 1288:MelanieN 1199:contribs 1187:unsigned 1148:contribs 1136:unsigned 1120:contribs 1108:unsigned 998:contribs 986:unsigned 904:and his 849:contribs 837:unsigned 801:contribs 789:unsigned 779:contribs 767:unsigned 733:unsigned 700:unsigned 643:contribs 631:unsigned 575:contribs 563:unsigned 540:reviews. 526:WRITERS. 447:contribs 431:contribs 419:unsigned 408:article. 245:View log 187:username 181:{{subst: 175:username 169:{{subst: 159:username 153:{{subst: 143:username 137:{{subst: 39:or in a 1915:LibStar 1847:LibStar 1797:LibStar 1740:LibStar 1703:LibStar 1679:LibStar 1593:AAA3AAA 1540:SmartSE 1503:(shout) 1360:And Re 1281:WP:PROF 910:SmartSE 895:I have 874:SmartSE 815:SmartSE 673:SmartSE 610:SmartSE 472:SmartSE 332:SmartSE 292:WP refs 280:scholar 218:protect 213:history 151:users: 1934:Delete 1768:verify 1579:Delete 1557:Delete 1532:WP:AFD 1332:Bejnar 1322:fails 1320:Delete 1301:Delete 1273:WP:BIO 1269:WP:GNG 1265:Delete 1236:LaMona 1228:Delete 1215:Drmies 1163:Drmies 1075:others 1050:Delete 1037:Drmies 1010:Drmies 968:Drmies 943:Drmies 923:Delete 901:Drmies 414:press. 264:Google 222:delete 50:delete 2000:(UTC) 1764:noted 1662:lwart 1567:lwart 1450:(UTC) 1395:Keep. 1305:Larry 1084:WP:RS 1071:value 935:about 897:asked 307:JSTOR 268:books 252:Stats 239:views 231:watch 227:links 129:Note: 16:< 1991:talk 1919:talk 1899:talk 1877:talk 1851:talk 1826:talk 1810:him. 1801:talk 1780:talk 1744:talk 1707:talk 1683:talk 1652:stop 1597:talk 1544:talk 1461:Note 1424:talk 1383:talk 1348:KEEP 1336:talk 1309:talk 1292:talk 1240:talk 1219:talk 1195:talk 1180:KEEP 1167:talk 1144:talk 1116:talk 1101:Keep 1092:talk 1041:talk 1029:Keep 1014:talk 994:talk 972:talk 947:talk 914:talk 893:Note 878:talk 845:talk 819:talk 797:talk 775:talk 758:and 741:talk 708:talk 677:talk 664:this 660:this 656:this 639:talk 614:talk 571:talk 476:talk 465:and 443:talk 427:talk 396:talk 376:talk 356:talk 336:talk 300:FENS 274:news 235:logs 209:talk 205:edit 54:☺ · 1953:bli 1496:123 1271:or 1232:him 1031:by 326:or 314:TWL 243:– ( 183:csp 179:or 171:csm 139:spa 113:not 1993:) 1956:nd 1950:ar 1947:St 1944:- 1921:) 1901:) 1879:) 1853:) 1832:) 1828:• 1803:) 1782:) 1746:) 1709:) 1685:) 1658:St 1603:) 1599:• 1563:St 1546:) 1426:) 1385:) 1338:) 1311:) 1294:) 1242:) 1221:) 1213:. 1201:) 1197:• 1169:) 1150:) 1146:• 1122:) 1118:• 1094:) 1043:) 1016:) 1000:) 996:• 974:) 949:) 916:) 880:) 851:) 847:• 821:) 803:) 799:• 777:• 743:) 710:) 679:) 645:) 641:• 616:) 608:. 577:) 573:• 478:) 445:• 437:— 429:• 398:) 390:. 378:) 370:. 358:) 350:. 338:) 294:) 237:| 233:| 229:| 225:| 220:| 216:| 211:| 207:| 189:}} 177:}} 167:: 161:}} 145:}} 135:: 62:· 52:. 1989:( 1917:( 1897:( 1875:( 1849:( 1824:( 1799:( 1778:( 1742:( 1705:( 1681:( 1660:★ 1595:( 1565:★ 1542:( 1507:@ 1422:( 1381:( 1334:( 1307:( 1290:( 1238:( 1217:( 1193:( 1165:( 1142:( 1114:( 1090:( 1039:( 1012:( 992:( 970:( 945:( 912:( 876:( 843:( 817:( 795:( 773:( 739:( 706:( 675:( 637:( 612:( 569:( 474:( 441:( 425:( 394:( 374:( 354:( 334:( 318:) 310:· 304:· 296:· 289:· 283:· 277:· 271:· 266:( 258:( 255:) 248:· 241:) 203:( 191:. 185:| 173:| 157:| 141:| 65:✉

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.