Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Feinberg: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Jasonasosa (talk | contribs)
Jasonasosa (talk | contribs)
John Feinberg: one more thing...
Line 19: Line 19:
*'''Keep''' This is merely an extension of the nominator attempting to keep the subject from being cited as a reference at [[Genesis creation narrative]], and as such is a bad-faith nomination. [[User:Joefromrandb|Joefromrandb]] ([[User talk:Joefromrandb|talk]]) 02:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' This is merely an extension of the nominator attempting to keep the subject from being cited as a reference at [[Genesis creation narrative]], and as such is a bad-faith nomination. [[User:Joefromrandb|Joefromrandb]] ([[User talk:Joefromrandb|talk]]) 02:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep''' per [[WP:PROF]]. The nominator may wish to review [[WP:POINT]] and [[WP:BEFORE]], particularly since contrary to their nomination the article has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=John_Feinberg&oldid=512246976 referenced] (albeit with primary sources) since its creation. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 07:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep''' per [[WP:PROF]]. The nominator may wish to review [[WP:POINT]] and [[WP:BEFORE]], particularly since contrary to their nomination the article has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=John_Feinberg&oldid=512246976 referenced] (albeit with primary sources) since its creation. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 07:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
::That is not true. This article has not been properly referenced, nor at the creation of this article. The only supporting references that have been added are to support the books he's written. That isn't sufficient for [[WP:N]]. Thanks, &nbsp; &mdash; [[User talk:Jasonasosa|<span style="color:green;"><b>Jasonasosa</b></span>]] 08:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
::That is not true. This article has not been properly referenced, nor at the creation of this article. You might want to look at that again. If you think that is a proper references, then you need to read [[WP:RS]] again. The only supporting references that have been added are to support the books he's written. That isn't sufficient for [[WP:N]]. Thanks, &nbsp; &mdash; [[User talk:Jasonasosa|<span style="color:green;"><b>Jasonasosa</b></span>]] 08:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:04, 14 September 2012

John Feinberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The John Feinberg page does not have any references. It violates wp:reliable, wp:unsourced, and wp:verify   — Jasonasosa 21:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - Per WP:PROF, "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars ... are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." Since Feinberg is often cited as an expert in theodicy and ethics, this article should stand on the merit of his work. Ἀλήθεια 21:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:PROF, "Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability." Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 21:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A GS h-index of 8 is reasonable for theology to pass WP:Prof#C1. Sources seem there. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

It's not off beam... without verification, you can't have WP:N, WP:PROF, or WP:AUTH. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 00:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Citation rates for theology tend to be very low so an h-index of 9 (thanks for your recount) is quite good. Many of the cites are to his books. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Oh, please tell me how h-index even comes into play when there are no citations given to support the main article. And please tell me you are considering this point: "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1" at WP:Prof#C1, when the only citations given are for his works. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 01:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. This article has not been properly referenced, nor at the creation of this article. You might want to look at that again. If you think that is a proper references, then you need to read WP:RS again. The only supporting references that have been added are to support the books he's written. That isn't sufficient for WP:N. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 08:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]