Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian David Ellis

: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. Tone 21:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

=[[Brian David Ellis]]=

:{{la|Brian David Ellis}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Brian David Ellis}})

Non-notable identity, doesn't meet WP:BIO criterion Bill william compton^Talk 13:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

He is in fact a rather well-known figure in philosophy of nature circles. Granted, the entry needs expansion and he's not some sort of rock star, but it is clear that Dr. Ellis is notable enough to deserve an entry. JKeck (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep. GS gives cites of 248, 97, 2, 1. Unusual but enough for a philosopher to pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC).
Keep. Ellis's writings are the standard references for the essentialist position in metaphysics. Agree with JKeck that the entry needs expansion. Elaborating (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2011 (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.