Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Dacey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandstein (talk • contribs)

[edit] Austin_Dacey

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Austin Dacey
Austin_Dacey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

insufficient evidence of notability of the subject given Thelostandthefound 14:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. —GRBerry 14:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. This person does seem to be working steadily as a freelance writer in the field of ... I'm sorry, I know that "atheistic apologetics" probably isn't the appropriate term, but whatever the equivalent correct phrase is. His most significant achievement seems to be his work as editor of Philo (journal). The Prometheus Books web site doesn't yet list his not-yet-published book, and it doesn't seem to have gotten much press yet. I couldn't find much in the way of reliable independent sources writing about him, besides the trivial coverage you'd expect to hit for anyone who makes a living at writing and speaking. No prejudice against recreation after the book is published, if it gets significant critial attention. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • ah yes, fair enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelostandthefound (talk • contribs) 16:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • no idea I have added his other book to his article. He has also written a significant number of articles published in a variety of magazines from well known to obscure, and seems, from a google search, to come up reasonably often in public interviews and secondary sources. Do these things make him notable? Anarchia 21:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • possibly, with verifiable references, and if the publications were moderately well-known or influential. --72.228.128.22 02:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Thelostandthefound
  • Weak delete. he seems non-notable but i think the opinion of someone in the field should carry the real weight. Is such a sentiment documented anywhere? is it a valid source? This may be the answer, or at least a red flag . A subject should have provoked a dialogue from his/her peers. Dacey is not, by definition and with controversy, a notable academic or author. that is, even though he's published a significant number of articles...in a variety of magazines from well known to obscure (see above) Wiki's (flexible) notability requirements emphasize quality over quanity. more specifically, either one of those works is significant in of itself (the basis for a textbook or the subject of multiple, independent works or cited by other authors in academia) OR: the entire body of work collectively satisfies those requirements I mentioned. Other questions one should consider; How important and unique are his/her thoeries/concepts? Are they the subjects of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies? In what ways has Dacey been recognized as a distinguished figure? Has he been the recipient of any awards? are those awards notable and verifiable? Also, please keep in mind that a figure can actually meet notability requirements and still qualify for deletion simply because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject True theory 19:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Add sources, or DELETE Tiptopper 21:20, 15 November 2007 (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.