636:. Three or four independent reviews (and I'm sure there are more) for a book means "multiple". You appear to have misunderstood the purpose of the reviews, they are not there to help fill the article with content (although they may well can), they are there to establish notability. At the moment the article is still a stub, and it can be fleshed out by someone who wants to do it. All we are doing now is simply establishing whether it satisfies the notability criteria, which no doubt the subject does. Arguing from what you believe what an article should be (or even what kind of reviews you believe they should be) but which are not actually specified by notability guidelines is not going to help the discussion.
418:. And his other books did not receive many major reviews. The Google Books links have little substance on May apart from repeating what he said, e.g., even in the first link of the group, which has the longest relevance, there is no analysis and only recitation. I'd welcome other sources, especially if they are offline or in languages other than English. I would support restoring the redirect to
543:. You are not arguing based on established criteria. There are plenty of academics whose work are important enough to be merely cited and not discussed. It is also odd for you to say there is no discussion of his concept when there is one that starts the first sentence with him and describes his work as "seminal". You also appear to have completely ignored
516:
was a "seminal" work—as I mentioned before, where are the sources that discuss it and its impact? Because if there are few or none, it means that the book and May's contribution to the concept should be addressed within the concept's own article. How does one write an article about a philosopher when
572:
If May's contributions as a general author are important, the major "reviews" would have more than cursory synopsis to express about his oeuvre. None of the Google Books texts above discuss any aspect of May's work that can be paraphrased for our purposes—they're simple citations and recitations, no
358:
because I wouldn't call it a "major institution of higher education and research". While the interviews are good sources, they can't be used to demonstrate notability because they are not independent of the subject. However, the reviews of his work and citations in other works might be enough to
511:
We measure sources by the extent to which they address the subject, not counts of mere mentions. (We can write only write articles with the former, as the latter gives us no content to paraphrase.) "Poststructuralist" is an adjective that can be applied to anything. If you take
Antliff's JSTOR
390:. Are we working with any biographical secondary sources? Because if so, I haven't seen them, nevertheless enough to write a biographical article that does justice to the topic. None of his book reviews go into enough depth to even describe his writing career. To review the above links, the
564:
If May's contributions to poststructuralism are important, per the same quoted guideline section, there would be more coverage than the single hagiographic
Antliff statement. If instead his "significant impact" is attributed to his general academic career, there would be works that
794:#1, based on reviews of his work. Even if the article briefly discusses him and is mostly about his academic work, such an article would appear to be well within Knowledge (XXG)'s content guidelines based on the sources above. I am still not convinced that the subject meets
481:
422:, which is another mess but at least cites a secondary source in May's relation to "poststructuralist anarchism", the work for which he is best known, but since that single-sentence mention serves little function in the article, I'd also back the nom's rationale to delete.
204:
No significant coverage (of the subject) in reliable sources could be found. There is some coverage of one of his books (see the talk page), but not much else. Repeatedly recreated from the redirect by an IP, so worth having a discussion rather than edit warring over it. —
763:- I redirected the article due to the sourcing issues. Due to the commonality of his name, it is difficult to find sources which are about him specifically. However, I didn't go to AfD due to his citation count, which in my opinion clearly meets
367:#1. I'll let others weigh in before deciding to withdraw this nomination. I mainly submitted this article as a way to start a discussion due to edit warring on the page (reverting to redirect and back repeatedly). Thanks for your comments
521:
article would be primitive based on such sparse sourcing. Philosophers show impact in field by having their work reviewed and discussed by their peers in the field's many journals. I don't see how that bar has been met here.
577:
If anyone actually read the content of those reviews, they'd find two or fewer (sometimes no) usable reviews for each book. And I thought we established that we don't have enough material to consider any of the books
439:
Size of reviews, need for analysis, offline sources or in other languages do not appear to be criteria for notability. However, establishing a new turn in concept ("poststructuralist anarchism" in his case) is for
591:), would be so threadbare of content that no justice would be done to the topic. I don't need to be patronized by the text of the notability guidelines—I know them well—because the point of those guidelines is to
165:
223:
547:, May is not just noted for poststructuralist anarchism, he qualifies under multiple criteria. (You also miscounted, I have already given three and four book reviews each for a few of his books.)
456:#1 are citations, therefore you cannot dismissed the Google Books hits as they are part of how you can establish notability. You can also find multiple reviews for many of his books, for example
573:
secondary analysis. (Not to mention that the other major "reviews" mentioned above are largely short, routine, or from unreliable sources, and we could go source-by-source if necessary.)
255:
235:
118:
595:
notability. The substance of the sourcing is ultimately what determines the basis for the article, and in this case, the sources are weak and accordingly, there is no article.
243:
767:. Although, with the current sourcing I wouldn't mind redirecting (obviously, since I did), without any issue with recreation, once reliable sourcing is included.
159:
288:
665:
I stick by GNG. May's work on political philosophy and poststructuralism is covered significantly by reliable (Peer-reviewed journals) and independent sources.
628:
Yet you are still not arguing from any established notability guidelines. What you linked to is not even an official guideline. Per official guideline
322:
310:
316:
313:
466:(the FT one reviewed a number of books, but it singled out May's book for praise, and later listed it as one of the books of the year of 2009
319:
125:
280:
17:
689:, where is his work on poststructualism covered significantly? The claim to this effect in the article is unsourced, hagiographic.
541:
Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here
517:
the only sources are primary/affiliated (interviews/staff bios) or single book reviews (sometimes two) on individual books? Even a
302:
582:. Writing a handful of books, each reviewed once or twice in an area journal, is not an indicator of general author notability.
270:
277:
736:
According to GNG, "significant" refers to the quality of source, not the number of sources. It simply means "non-trivial".
91:
86:
831:
180:
40:
806:
375:
209:
95:
147:
491:
78:
587:
Any article written from the above sourcing will lack in biographical detail, and if scoped to just his works (
588:
518:
474:
141:
791:
453:
441:
364:
351:
325:
273:
199:
827:
251:
231:
36:
764:
536:
284:
445:
137:
702:
484:
292:
812:
798:, but rather that he qualifies on subject specific notability criteria alone (which is allowed per
778:
745:
741:
731:
714:
710:
697:
674:
670:
645:
603:
556:
530:
506:
430:
341:
295:
215:
173:
60:
787:
720:
629:
544:
494:
467:
464:
360:
298:
187:
449:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
826:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
799:
306:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
355:
267:
247:
227:
795:
415:
579:
329:
276:#5. He is also Class of 1941 Memorial Professor of the Humanities at Clemson University
266:- He appears to have once held a named chair (McDevitt Chair in Religious Philosophy) of
737:
725:
706:
691:
685:
666:
597:
524:
424:
419:
153:
768:
641:
552:
502:
337:
82:
54:
112:
705:
is a review of his work on poststructuralism by an independent reliable source.
332:. I believe he is notable enough based on a few different notability criteria.
575:
I have already given three and four book reviews each for a few of his books.
723:, nor are the three reviews of his two works on poststructuralism in toto
786:- I nominated this article, but have been convinced that the topic meets
637:
548:
498:
368:
333:
74:
66:
414:(very brief listings for librarian purchase recommendations): it isn't
539:, ordinary citations and reviews are counted towards notability -
406:, which is supposed to be his standout work, was only reviewed in
279:. His books are also reviewed in major publications, for example,
461:
820:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
324:, among too many to list here). He therefore possibly satisfies
291:(this is in addition to specialist review publications, e.g.
224:
list of
Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
561:
Afraid I can't be any more exact, but in simple summation:
632:#3 he should be author of a work that is the subject of
514:
The
Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism
404:
The
Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism
108:
104:
100:
172:
634:
multiple independent periodical articles or reviews
309:, and his work quoted and discussed in books (e.g.
186:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
834:). No further edits should be made to this page.
476:in addition to THE and LA Review given above; a
460:- in addition to two already given above, also
398:reviews are both hopelessly short, leaving the
244:list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions
301:#3. There are also interviews and discussion
493:, etc. These should easily qualify him under
8:
242:Note: This debate has been included in the
222:Note: This debate has been included in the
241:
221:
633:
574:
540:
328:#1. He has written opinion pieces for
478:The Moral Theory of Poststructuralism
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
535:I believe you are wrong there. Per
196:No indication of notability per GNG
24:
297:), therefore may qualify under
272:, therefore possibly satisfies
1:
402:piece. As I said months ago,
61:02:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
813:03:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
779:11:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
746:09:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
732:00:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
715:07:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
698:23:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
675:09:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
646:02:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
604:00:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
557:14:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
531:23:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
507:14:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
431:02:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
342:00:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
256:22:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
236:22:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
216:20:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
851:
469:). Same for other books -
512:article at its word that
452:. Also counting towards
420:Post-anarchism#Approaches
410:(philosophy journal) and
823:Please do not modify it.
589:bibliography of Todd May
519:bibliography of Todd May
354:#5 will be satisfied by
32:Please do not modify it.
807:Insertcleverphrasehere
719:A single review isn't
376:Insertcleverphrasehere
281:Times Higher Education
210:Insertcleverphrasehere
580:independently notable
416:independently notable
721:significant coverage
448:, and an interview
350:I don't think that
289:LA Reviews of Books
488:A Significant Life
388:Redirect or delete
809:
378:
258:
238:
212:
842:
825:
805:
775:
772:
730:
728:
696:
694:
688:
602:
600:
529:
527:
429:
427:
374:
356:Le Moyne College
268:Le Moyne College
208:
191:
190:
176:
128:
116:
98:
57:
34:
850:
849:
845:
844:
843:
841:
840:
839:
838:
832:deletion review
821:
773:
770:
726:
724:
692:
690:
683:
598:
596:
525:
523:
425:
423:
400:LA Rev of Books
133:
124:
89:
73:
70:
55:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
848:
846:
837:
836:
816:
815:
781:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
678:
677:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
585:
584:
583:
570:
569:to his points.
471:A Fragile Life
434:
433:
384:
383:
382:
381:
345:
344:
330:New York Times
260:
259:
239:
194:
193:
130:
69:
64:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
847:
835:
833:
829:
824:
818:
817:
814:
811:
810:
808:
801:
797:
793:
789:
785:
782:
780:
777:
776:
766:
762:
759:
758:
747:
743:
739:
738:Ali Pirhayati
735:
734:
733:
729:
722:
718:
717:
716:
712:
708:
707:Ali Pirhayati
704:
701:
700:
699:
695:
687:
682:
681:
680:
679:
676:
672:
668:
667:Ali Pirhayati
664:
661:
660:
647:
643:
639:
635:
631:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
605:
601:
594:
590:
586:
581:
576:
571:
568:
563:
562:
560:
559:
558:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
534:
533:
532:
528:
520:
515:
510:
509:
508:
504:
500:
496:
492:
489:
485:
482:
479:
475:
472:
468:
465:
462:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
438:
437:
436:
435:
432:
428:
421:
417:
413:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
386:
385:
380:
379:
377:
370:
366:
362:
357:
353:
349:
348:
347:
346:
343:
339:
335:
331:
327:
323:
320:
317:
314:
311:
308:
304:
300:
296:
293:
290:
286:
282:
278:
275:
271:
269:
265:
262:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
240:
237:
233:
229:
225:
220:
219:
218:
217:
214:
213:
211:
203:
201:
189:
185:
182:
179:
175:
171:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
139:
136:
135:Find sources:
131:
127:
123:
120:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
59:
58:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
822:
819:
804:
803:
792:WP:NACADEMIC
783:
769:
760:
662:
592:
566:
513:
487:
477:
470:
457:
454:WP:NACADEMIC
442:WP:NACADEMIC
411:
407:
403:
399:
396:The Guardian
395:
391:
387:
373:
372:
365:WP:NACADEMIC
359:qualify for
352:WP:NACADEMIC
326:WP:NACADEMIC
285:The Guardian
274:WP:NACADEMIC
263:
207:
206:
200:WP:NACADEMIC
197:
195:
183:
177:
169:
162:
156:
150:
144:
134:
121:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
765:WP:NSCHOLAR
537:WP:ACADEMIC
160:free images
248:XOR'easter
228:XOR'easter
828:talk page
788:WP:AUTHOR
686:Pirhayati
630:WP:AUTHOR
545:WP:AUTHOR
495:WP:AUTHOR
444:#1 - see
361:WP:AUTHOR
299:WP:AUTHOR
37:talk page
830:or in a
307:Believer
119:View log
75:Todd May
67:Todd May
39:or in a
800:WP:PROF
790:#3 and
593:presume
166:WP refs
154:scholar
92:protect
87:history
56:MBisanz
796:WP:GNG
412:Choice
408:Ethics
363:#3 or
138:Google
96:delete
802:). —
567:react
458:Death
181:JSTOR
142:books
126:Stats
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
784:Keep
774:5969
771:Onel
761:Keep
742:talk
727:czar
711:talk
703:This
693:czar
671:talk
663:Keep
642:talk
599:czar
553:talk
526:czar
503:talk
497:#3.
450:here
446:here
426:czar
394:and
371:. —
338:talk
264:Keep
252:talk
232:talk
174:FENS
148:news
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
50:keep
638:Hzh
549:Hzh
499:Hzh
490:-
473:-
392:THE
369:Hzh
334:Hzh
303:ABC
198:or
188:TWL
117:– (
744:)
713:)
673:)
644:)
555:)
505:)
486:;
483:,
480:-
463:,
340:)
321:,
318:,
315:,
312:,
305:,
294:,
287:,
283:,
254:)
246:.
234:)
226:.
168:)
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
52:.
740:(
709:(
684:@
669:(
640:(
551:(
501:(
336:(
250:(
230:(
202:.
192:)
184:·
178:·
170:·
163:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
140:(
132:(
129:)
122:·
115:)
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.