Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric T. Olson (philosopher)

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 speedy keep‎. SK1, withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eric T. Olson (philosopher)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not appear to pass notability guidelines for academics - professional career is rather standard for any professor in the field. He does have a few books, though data on them is (to my cursory look) limited. Happy to be corrected by someone with more expertise in the field, but seemingly apt for deletion. A MINOTAUR (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, England, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, both of his single-authored books have multiple reviews (in good journals), so he meets WP:Author. --Jahaza (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 on exceptionally high GS citations for philosophy. Nominator is advised to carry out WP:Before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Exceptionally high is right - google scholar lists 1330 for The Human Animal. fyi for the nom: "full professors" like this one in book-writing fields tend to get kept at AfD, on WP:NPROF grounds or WP:NAUTHOR ones. Their careers may be "standard" in the normative sense, but that's not the same as "standard" as in typical. We don't tend to have articles on the latter group, but remember that that group includes teaching profs (rather than research ones), lecturers, adjuncts, etc etc. -- asilvering (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes NPROF-C1 / NAUTHOR. --Mvqr (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. I've added a few of the reviews as references in the article (there's more out there for anyone who wants to look). WJ94 (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Clearly passes WP:NPROF and WP:AUTHOR. Sal2100 (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per WP:PROF#C1 and WP:AUTHOR. I added more reviews and another book (too new to have been reviewed). —David Eppstein (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Thanks for the clarification A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2023 (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.