Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Conway (academic)

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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Conway (academic)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Does not meet any of the criteria set out there, or in the specific criteria notes set out there. Article is unsourced, despite request for citations dated August 2014. External link given for 'Civitas weblog' does not lead to any information about subject (even in site search). Smerus (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Four of his books are by major academic publishers (Penguin, Palgrave Macmillan, Ashgate) and I found five reliably-published academic reviews of them. That may be more relevant than citation counts for this sort of academic subject, and likely is also enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. It also saves the article from being unsourced, although sources for the biographical detail of the article and not just for his publication activities are still needed. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per the publication by Penguin and Palgrave Macmillan (Ashgate helps but wouldn't be enough) w/ reviews in journals such as Philosophy -- this should be sufficient for C1. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. both of the above 'keep' proposals rely on WP:AUTHOR - they do not disagree with a failure under WP:ACADEMIC. I point out that the criteria under WP:AUTHOR do not relate to number of books, or the quality of their publishers: they are:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Nothing in the article, or in the "keep" comments of David Eppstein or Michael Scott Cuthbert, or that I have been able to source, indicates that any of these criteria have been met. -- Smerus (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the books count as "a significant body of work" and that the reviews count as "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", according to WP:AUTHOR #3. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe however that you need independent, reliable, sources to confirm that it is 'significant'. The criteria refer to the works' innate significance, not to (e.g.) a significant number of works.--Smerus (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to require that an independent reliable source contains the exact literal phrase "this is a significant body of work" then a lot of notable people are not going to pass. Or you could, you know, interpret the word "significant" in this guideline with its usual English meaning, something that is not meager. Four books with major publishers is significant in this sense. What the guideline asks the independent reliable sources to do is to exist (and, presumably, cover the subject in some non-trivial depth), not necessarily to trumpet the importance of the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a bit of WP:OR involved here on David Eppstein's part in asserting what is a 'usual' meaning. Wiktionary gives 5 meanings to 'significant', of which "Reasonably large in number or amount" comes 4th - above it are what I myself would consider its 'usual' meanings, "Signifying something;", "Having a covert or hidden meaning"; and "Having a noticeable or major effect; notable". As this discussion is about notability, I suggest it is this latter meaning which is relevant here. Of the making of books there is no end, as Ecclesiastes tells us: but Wikipedia is about quality, not quantity. Anyway I am taking this point to discussion on the Notability talk page.--Smerus (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Writing things in an article that one infers rather than from sources is OR. Using one's knowledge of English to interpret guidelines during an AfD is not OR. And stretching the OR guideline so far out of recognition is Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have expressed my opinion, as you have expressed yours. The only third party opinion expressed so far on the talk-page agrees with me, for what that is worth. Best, Smerus (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: When this AfD began, my first reaction was surprise: I recognised the name and recalled reading some pieces by the subject a quarter century ago. My instinct was for retention (also swayed by his Marx book being in Pelican) but when I went looking for supporting material, I was surprised how little was to hand - too little, I felt, to sustain a case. Since then some book reviews have been identified; I lack access to assess their depth, but for me the notability criteria (whether as academic or author, and appreciating these are far stricter than apply to rappers, footballers and pageant queens) require some evidence of influence: others picking up and engaging with the subject's work. If there is clear evidence of that - for example around the subject's recent anti-EU publication (around which I could see no waves?), then I can be moved to a Weak Keep but until then I feel it is a Weak Delete. AllyD (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there's general disagreement on this point, AllyD, but I feel that other scholars choosing to publicly review the book, especially in a major forum like Philosophy, is the sort of evidence of influence that goes strongly towards notability. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft instead if needed as this should be removed from mainspace for now as it's still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The text of the Wikipedia article does not explain why this academic is noteworthy. It's just a short summary of where he lived and the jobs that he has held, none of which alone is sufficient for WP:PROF. If the consensus turns out to be that his written works are sufficiently noteworthy, I think that it is necessary to explain why they are noteworthy in the body of the article. The article doesn't even say what David Conway studies beyond "theology" and "philosophy." OtterAM (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @OtterAM:, this looks like a delete opinion, am I right?--Smerus (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Books from highly-regarded publishers reviewed in top journals by significant philosophers; surely that's enough? Josh Milburn (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I added another book review, and I note that chapter 7 of Market, State and Feminism: The Economics of Feminist Policy is for the most part about Conway's 1998 book. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm counting six maybe seven reviews of David Conway books from JSTOR alone. I'd give you hits from other databases but I'm getting shellacked by a children's author. I should add that there are a lot of David Conways. No opinion. czar 22:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Careful here, because not all the references on JSTOR are to this David Conway. A number are to the writer on philosophy David A. Conway of the University of Missouri-St. Louis, who is quite another person.--Smerus (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - So already in the article are book reviews in Review of Austrian Economics, Philosophy (two), American Political Science Review, Nations and Nationalism, and Journal of Libertarian Studies. Also found reviews in Life and School: Journal for the Theory and Practice of Education, a write-up in The Telegraph, an article by Mark Skousen in The Freeman, 48 doesn't cover him much but says "More recently, David Conway's A Farewell to Marx (Penguin Books, 1987) has received high praise for his deft criticisms," which indicates there's more to find, he's featured prominently in this Express article, etc. Probably closer to weak keep than keep, but ultimately, it looks like there's enough to satisfy WP:BIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Josh Milburn. Coverage of one's work is the most important way of demonstrating notability for creative professionals. Lindsay Lohan and Miley Cyrus are outliers, not typical examples. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.