Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Boghossian

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 of the debate was keep moink 01:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Boghossian

Did't see any remarkable credentials beyond what thousands of other philosophy professor might have. Esprit15d 16:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Despite warnings, and though I invited him to comment here at the discussion, the author has removed the afd template twice. I haven't added it back in order to avoid a revert war. Not helping his crediblity.--Esprit15d 16:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Answer (from the apparently less-than-credible initiator of the article in question): I apologise for not catching on immediately that you had created a separate discussion page on this issue. Anyway: Your objection is not a sound one. Boghossian is one of the leading contemporary philosophers in his fields of interest, and has a natural place in any serious catalogue of contemporary philosophers. I hope that you will consult a member of the philosophy project, before you consider similar action against philosophy-related articles and stubs in the future. While the maintenance work of "recent changes patrollers" are important, they should not interrupt the work of the projects concerned with making wikipedia a leading source of knowledge. --Thorsen 16:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Please leave the AfD template on the article until the discussion is closed (usually about 5 days). You can continue to work to improve the article during that time.Thatcher131 17:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Exasperated comment Not every editor can create a perfect article full grown on the first edit like Athena from the head of Zeus. While users should probably be encouraged to use their user space to polish their articles before going live, it is really beneficial to send an article to AfD 2 minutes after it was created? Thatcher131 17:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Query in light of the comments: I have created numerous stubs on philosophers and social scientists in the past. Why have I not been met with this kind of hostility from recent changes patrollers on these other occasions? Is the adding of these deletion-thingies entirely without plan or purpose? --Thorsen 17:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Friendly tip: If this is a reflection of a new policy, then someone should add similar deletion-comments to all the articles in the Philosopher stubs-category (500+ articles). --Thorsen 17:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. His being at NYU should be sufficient to indicate his importance, but since you seem to think it isn't, he is an extremely well known philosopher of epistemology, and information about him is extremely useful to persons determining which graduate schools at which one should apply for admission. He by far exceeds the "basic professor" test, and an entry on him is certainly more important than having an extensive entry on every episode of South Park. KSchutte 18:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I mean, c'mon, he has a stub in Portugese for God's sake. Stub articles are rarely (if ever) vanity pages. KSchutte 19:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP. Naturally. --Thorsen 18:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC) (changed: --Thorsen 11:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC))
  • Weak Keep - has two published books. That should be good enough for an article. -- infinity0 18:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per KSchutte. Monicasdude 20:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If it's on the Philosophy WikiProject task list, I'd assume there's some reasonable standard of notability met there. Maybe some more information on his notability, writings, or philosophies might help. --Elkman - (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Surely it would be great to have a longer article. Unfortunately, it's being put for an AfD request on the very day it was created, so there hasn't been much time for expansion. AfD ought to be only a complaint about article inclusion, not article content. KSchutte 20:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Article inclusion is dependent on article content. An article shouldn't be posted until it is sufficiently detailed and sourced to prove its subject's significance independently. That said, keep per Elkman. Sliggy 21:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as somewhat notable within a non-trivial field. — Adrian Lamo ·· 20:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep no idea why this is here. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Galenet lists him on its Directory of American Scholars. Academic Search Premier comes up with 13 articles mentioning him and Infotrack comes up with 9 mentions. Seems that he is verifiable and he meets our notability requirements. Capitalistroadster 22:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    Comment would it be appropriate for any of those sources to be included in the article itself, to help demonstrate the verifiability and notability conclusions? Sliggy 22:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — a well-known philosopher who clearly meets normal criteria for notability. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable enough Eivind 23:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but could use some expansion. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-10 04:58Z
  • STRONG KEEP Paul Boghossian's contributions to philosophy of language (particularly his attempts to revive the idea of an analytic-synthetic distinction and his criticims of semantic holism) are considered important enough to have allowed his inclusion in a fundamental anthology on the philosophy of language in Italian. Your ignorance of philosophy does not come close to justifying his exclusion from an Encylopedia which covers such absolute nonsense as all the episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and erroneously classifies Ayn Rant (no, that's not a typo) as an epistemologist.--Lacatosias 08:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I will expand it with this info when I get the time, but I'm already killing myself trying to salvage the whole philosophy of mind section, creating four queues for the philosophy portal, and correcting errors in any philosophy-related articles that I have come across in the last few day. Not that anyone notices. Leave the article as it is, for now.--Lacatosias 17:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I notice, buddy. You're doing a great job. KSchutte 19:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you K. It can get extremely exasperating around here sometimes.--Lacatosias 09:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and slap Espirit with a trout for tagging the article before it's been in existence longer than two minutes. Night Gyr 15:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - His article Analyticity Reconsidered is of some interest. Mauro Murzi 0:03, 12 March 2006 (TMEC)
  • Keep Lucidish 16:32, 12 March 2006 (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.