Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Mumford

: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. I note that the AFD template was not added to the article until the 15th, but I see no other reasonable outcome for this discussion, and no additional comment have been made in the past 2+ days. There is no point relisting this. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

=[[Stephen Mumford]]=

AfDs for this article:
    {{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Mumford}}

:{{la|Stephen Mumford}} – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|Stephen Mumford}})

Not notable academic philosopher: neither very well-known nor influential. Has published with good presses etc. but so have very many other philosophers who wouldn't be regarded as warranting Wikipedia entry. --Alephomega (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

— Alephomega (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Note. There was no AfD notice on the article. I have placed one there now so the seven days of discussion should start from now. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Full professor, head of department and now head of School of Humanities at a Russell Group university is pretty obviously going to turn out to be notable, and that is confirmed by the reviews of his work cited in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, and can't we get some mechanism that prevents new editors from starting AfDs within, say, their first 10 (or even 50) edits? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Numerous published reviews of his work,e.g. [http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/198888857&referer=brief_results][http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/210656314&referer=brief_results][http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/193522520&referer=brief_results][http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/203843557&referer=brief_results][http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/440949493&referer=brief_results][http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/440949493&referer=brief_results][http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/359881187&referer=brief_results][http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/362092056&referer=brief_results], etc. Also, here is a quote from a 2003 article in the Sydney Morning Herald[http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/08/1060145848387.html]: "McIntosh tracked down brilliant young English metaphysician Stephen Mumford, of Nottingham University..." Certainly passes WP:PROF. Kinoq (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Top GS cites 182, 47, 46, 30... and for reasons above. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC).
  • Delete. 'Will turn out to be notable' does not equal 'notable'. Published reviews of work means little; most books published by reputable presses get reviewed within journals, and reviews in journals are rarely very critical. And the 'Sydney Morning Herald' - since when did philosophical stature get judged by single adjectives in newspapers? But this cause is perhaps lost. --Alephomega (talk) 11:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

— Alephomega (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

: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.