Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter J. King

: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. MBisanz talk 22:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

=[[Peter J. King]]=

:{{la|Peter J. King}} ([{{fullurl:Peter J. King|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter J. King}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

At first glance, this article appears a credit to Wikipedia. It is is detailed, has many external links and mentions several respectable publications. It's thoroughly wikified. But Peter J. King is not notable according to WP:TEACH. There is not a single reliable source listed in the article. Every external link leads to something written by Peter King or his associates. There are no third-party reliable sources about Peter King. Nothing in the article shows that he is notable, merely that he is a living academic. Matt's talk 18:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep WP:PROF defines as satisfying inclusion requirements those academics who are "more notable than the average college instructor/professor". Dr. King has held lectureships in philosophy at several colleges of Oxford University, ranked by the (all-too) authoritative Philosophical Gourmet Report as the [http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/overall.asp second best department in the English-speaking world]. His work One Hundred Philosophers: The Life and Work of the World's Greatest Thinkers has been translated into several different languages, and his papers have been published in journal s of such prestige as Think and the Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. That King is an academic of greater note than average should not be in doubt, to say the least. the skomorokh 19:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:GNG and WP:Notability (persons). He is a respected [http://human-nature.com/nibbs/04/king.html reviewer]. He has a notability that can be searched. [http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=39995&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html Unesco.com], [http://www.experiencefestival.com/peter_j_king_-_academic_career Experiencefestival.com]. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:I can see where you're coming from, but I'd be grateful if you could elaborate a little. What info are you getting from the Experience Festival link? I'm just seeing WP mirrors. Also, note that Dr King holds copyright to the UNESCO article, so there's still not a single third-party RS. The Human Nature review is a useful find, but do you think one book review is enough for notability? Matt's talk 21:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::His views are so respected that he was invited to write an article for [http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=39995&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html UNESCO]. No surprise he retains the copyright. He is a respected [http://human-nature.com/nibbs/04/king.html reviewer]. These sources speak toward his notability and with conjunction with the points epresented by User:skomorokh show he is qualified per WP:Prof. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 15:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. He's a stipendiary lecturer at Pembroke College[http://www.pmb.ox.ac.uk/Fellows_Staff/index.php?profile=139], i.e. he's not a college fellow, and he's listed on the staff list of the philosophy department under "Researchers, Temporary Lecturers and College Fellows" [http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/the_faculty/faculty_members], below the 70+ "Senior Staff" and the 20 "Permanent and/or Senior Postholders in other Faculties, Colleges etc". This implies he's paid by the college (not the university) to give college tutorials (not university lectures) and doesn't have an office in the philosophy faculty building. I see no sign he fulfils any of the nine criteria at WP:TEACH. If his one book is notable (not that i'm sure it is), there could be an article on the book. Qwfp (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. (by M.R.Forrester). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • weak delete does not meet WP:PROF in my humble opinion, there have been no reviews of his book in the mainstream press, nor has he been called upon to comment there and there are no mentions of him.[http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hl=en&tab=wn&ned=uk&q=%22Peter+J.+King%22+philosophy&ie=UTF-8] He has written essays/contributed to a few books, but is neither well-known to the public in the slightest, not the head of a department at a university. Plenty of people have a Ph.D and are lecturers, they are not noteworthy unless they are a head of a university department or something, or have popularised their ideas and had them commented upon to a more than average for the field amount in WP:RS.Sticky Parkin 01:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete no major research publications, and teaching at a notable college does not make one notable--no matter how important the college. Qwpf seems to sum up the situation properly. DGG (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • delete per Qwfp & DGG. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per the detailed analyses of Qwpf and DGG. --Crusio (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, per QWFP and DGG. If we were to keep this primarily on the basis of one book "One hundred philosophers..." (which seems to be a book of a reference nature rather than of novel research), I would want to see more substantial and explicit evidence of its importance and influence. Nsk92 (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep -- He appears just about to meet the criteria. Several of the works listed appear (contrary a statement above) to be in academic periodicals. I suspect that the arguemtn as to paymetn by college/university is a spurious one for Oxford and Cambridge, and is merely the result of their unusual structrue. Note: the subject is a namesake of mine, but unrelated. I have no conflict of interest. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:*query I've been looking through Google scholar [http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=Peter+J.+King&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N] for evidence of academic impact, ie evidence that he meets criterion #1 of WP:PROF, but havn't seen any so far. Can you provide evidence that his work has had a notable impact on the work of other scholars? Or suggest another criterion met in WP:PROF? Pete.Hurd (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:*Thank you for joining the debate; it's fun to have a Peter King discussing Peter King! But I'd like to back up Qwfp's point about the uni/college thing. An Oxbridge university lecturer is a senior, permanent position. A college lecturer is a the lowest rung in the hierarchy, renewed on an annual or termly basis, and can be a doctoral student (as was the case for Dr King). In North American English, a teaching assistant. Cf. [http://www.newmediamedicine.com/forum/oxford-medical-school/41008-tutor-college-lecturer-other-fancy-titles.html this discussion] [http://www.yorku.ca/hjordan/CV_HJ.html and] [http://oxford.academia.edu/PatrickTravers/Curriculum_Vitae some] [http://www.physiol.ox.ac.uk/~ps/cv.pdf examples]. Matt's talk 13:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep --- I'm coming down to keep on this one, but mostly because I don't want a user named "peterkingiron" to be a reason to keep an article about "Peter J King" -- but in all seriousness, the article looks good and helpful to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Per DGG. rootology (C)(T) 17:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Needs some expanding to show the impact of philosophy work - between the website and writings but I see this as a borderline keep because it has gaps and the writing could be better. I don't fault those who are unaware it's better to overref and bludgeon the reader with the obvious in the lede - these are then WP:Problems to be fixed. -- Banjeboi 20:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:*comment if there was any evidence showing any impact of his philosophy work, then I'd be tempted to chanve my !vote to "keep". But as it is, there is no WP:RS evidence of such impact. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, does not meet WP:PROF or any other standard. His work is not widely cited (figures on GS are single-digit). Association with Oxford colleges is casual, and in any event notability is not inherited. I'm hoping to see a higher-quality decision on this AfD, in comparison to some of the "no consensus" decisions we sometimes get when there are several keep votes: in this instance, as I see it not a single keep vote here gives an argument that is both (1) true and (2) relevant to WP:PROF or some other standard of WP:N. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2008 (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.