305:- The article is not well written at this point (sorry, Epeefleche, I see your comment about adding refs, but I know this article will be improved considerably eventually as time passes as is the normal course in wiki articles). I think that skews perceptions somewhat. Remember when you handed in typewritten work instead of handwritten work to get a 10% grade boost? Well I think the same thing applies here. I could come back and reconsider after the page is cleaned up. Until then, it's a keeper. --
341:
This is not easy to judge, as there is no reliable citation index for his subject. The large number of journal articles , about half in major journals, would argue for keeping, as does his having been selected to write an article in
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, an publication with stringent
262:
discipline, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. It also meets wp:author in that he is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by his peers, is known for originating significant new concepts, and has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles and reviews.--
321:
Fair point. This is definitely a stub, as the text is severely limited. Once could build it up rather easily by going through the sources, and using them to develop the text. But as the issue at the moment is only notability, I limited myself to trying to reflect that. But your criticism is
223:. When you find articles with "The X argument: a reply to Y" it means his ideas are sufficiently notable to merit a full-length refutation, but this is only slightly above average for a decent philosopher. I would like this to be kept, but I can't make a case for it based on sources I've found.
261:
I was the deprodding editor, and as nom points out I pointed nom to the google results. That not having satisfied nom, I've added many (though not all--I tired) of the relevant citations to the article. IMHO this meets wp:prof in that his research has made significant impact in his scholarly
195:
or any other notability standard. Prod was objected to based on hits from Google Books and Google
Scholar, but having published articles and books is standard for an academic and not a sign of notability. The sources for the article give good indication of the
156:
200:
of reliable sources coverage: a two-sentence contributor description from a journal, his own blog, a summary of his (apparently only) book from a defunct online book club, and a Google
Scholar search page.
281:
117:
150:
416:. Philosophy is a field where citation numbers will nearly always be low for contemporary practitioners, and are pretty useless as an indicator of notability. Academics who
420:
philosophy (as opposed to studying its history) like to present their work as being based on first priciples rather than on the work of others, so rarely cite their peers.
342:
requirements. true, I'd be a lot more satisfied if he held an academic position or had published some actual books. But according to
Cambridge University Press
90:
85:
94:
77:
310:
240:
there are 79k GHits for "William F. Vallicella" and 63K for "William
Vallicella". This is even more than I have - and I have co-authored a
467:
17:
224:
171:
138:
306:
345:
he did in fact hold a tenured position, apparently at Case
Western Reserve University or possibly Dayton University.
495:
132:
36:
220:
480:
449:
429:
403:
372:
356:
331:
314:
296:
271:
253:
232:
210:
59:
81:
128:
494:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
292:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
178:
425:
394:) 11:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC). The list of articles could be removed from the WP page; it's not usual.
228:
73:
65:
445:
399:
391:
368:
327:
267:
288:
164:
144:
343:
241:
477:
421:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
383:
188:
249:
206:
192:
441:
395:
387:
364:
323:
263:
55:
352:
472:
111:
363:
Thanks for that information/cite, which I've now incorporated into the article.--
245:
202:
187:
This bio of a former academic turned blogger does not show notability under
50:
347:
287:(by Epeefleche, approximately the same time as the above comment). —
488:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
282:
list of
Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
386:#1 on GS cites but eccentric activities make him notable.
440:
Thanks for this interesting info. How do we judge then?
107:
103:
99:
163:
177:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
498:). No further edits should be made to this page.
470:in my opinion, though not with flying colors.
8:
276:
280:: This debate has been included in the
468:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (academics)
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
1:
481:03:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
450:02:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
430:11:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
404:06:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
373:04:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
357:04:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
332:01:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
315:01:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
297:06:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
272:01:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
254:23:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
233:21:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
211:20:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
60:11:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
307:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling
515:
491:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
322:appropriately placed.--
74:William F. Vallicella
66:William F. Vallicella
382:. Seems not to pass
219:. Here is a useful
479:
44:The result was
471:
299:
285:
506:
493:
475:
286:
182:
181:
167:
115:
97:
34:
514:
513:
509:
508:
507:
505:
504:
503:
502:
496:deletion review
489:
473:
124:
88:
72:
69:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
512:
510:
501:
500:
484:
483:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
433:
432:
408:
407:
376:
375:
360:
359:
335:
334:
318:
317:
300:
289:David Eppstein
274:
256:
235:
185:
184:
121:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
511:
499:
497:
492:
486:
485:
482:
478:
476:
469:
465:
462:
461:
451:
447:
443:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
412:
411:
410:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
378:
377:
374:
370:
366:
362:
361:
358:
354:
350:
349:
344:
340:
337:
336:
333:
329:
325:
320:
319:
316:
312:
308:
304:
301:
298:
294:
290:
283:
279:
275:
273:
269:
265:
260:
257:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
236:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
215:
214:
213:
212:
208:
204:
199:
194:
190:
180:
176:
173:
170:
166:
162:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
130:
127:
126:Find sources:
122:
119:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
57:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
490:
487:
463:
422:Phil Bridger
417:
413:
379:
346:
338:
302:
277:
258:
242:notable book
237:
216:
197:
186:
174:
168:
160:
153:
147:
141:
135:
125:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
259:Solid Keep.
225:77.4.59.225
221:search link
151:free images
442:Xxanthippe
396:Xxanthippe
388:Xxanthippe
365:Epeefleche
324:Epeefleche
264:Epeefleche
466:- passes
464:Weak keep
380:Weak Keep
339:Weak Keep
238:Weak Keep
118:View log
474:Cocytus
414:Comment
384:WP:Prof
217:Comment
189:WP:PROF
157:WP refs
145:scholar
91:protect
86:history
246:NBeale
203:RL0919
193:WP:WEB
129:Google
95:delete
353:talk
244::-).
172:JSTOR
133:books
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
446:talk
426:talk
400:talk
392:talk
369:talk
328:talk
311:talk
303:Keep
293:talk
278:Note
268:talk
250:talk
229:talk
207:talk
198:lack
165:FENS
139:news
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
56:talk
51:Cirt
46:keep
348:DGG
179:TWL
116:– (
448:)
428:)
418:do
402:)
371:)
355:)
330:)
313:)
295:)
284:.
270:)
252:)
231:)
209:)
191:,
159:)
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
58:)
48:.
452:.
444:(
424:(
406:.
398:(
390:(
367:(
351:(
326:(
309:(
291:(
266:(
248:(
227:(
205:(
183:)
175:·
169:·
161:·
154:·
148:·
142:·
136:·
131:(
123:(
120:)
114:)
76:(
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.