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. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 18:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Soble[edit]

Alan Soble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Delete. Subject would appear to fail general notability guidelines due to a lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Searching Google News yields exactly zero matches by this name. [1] JBsupreme (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability. Doesn't pass the google test. Can't find anyone that even mentions his books and many are out of print. ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 23:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per later comments that show sources. ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 21:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - Google has more than nothing, and GS show cites to his books. Kevin (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Obvious and overwhelming notability. Bad faith nomination solely as part of wikistalking by editor deleting all articles I have created or worked on substantially. Soble is very widely published in the particular topic of "Philosophy of Sex and Love" (one of fewer than half-dozen top experts in the relatively narrow field), is past president of society so-named, journal editors, etc. LotLE×talk 08:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Multiple books from major university presses, enough to establish as an authority in his subject. Books reviewed in such academic sources as Annals of Sexual Behavior, and such popular ones as the Chicago Tribune Meets WP:PROF. . I can;t see how the nom found nothing in Google News, unless he just searched the current part instead of Google News Archive--including those book reviews I mentioned--see above. That a scholar's (or anyone's) books are out of print is irrelevant, as notability is permanent, and GScholar shows plenty of mentions: I see 531 listings in the Google Scholar search, including dozens of citations of many of his books. I would prefer to think this a careless rather than a bad faith nomination. DGG ( talk ) 08:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PROF and cite. Toddst1 (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There certainly are sources in the Google news archives [2]. AniMate 23:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Reasonable GS cites. Did the nominator not find these? Subject appears to be acknowledged authority on subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Extensive sourcing available via Google Books as well: [3].--Father Goose (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The blanking followed by AfD nom seems particularly confrontational. Was anything removed that was an exceptional claim not verifiable from the bio potsed on the talkpage or in reliable sources? I had no issue finding hundreds of books and dozens of Gnews hits. This suggests GNG is easily met and being cited as noted above in numerous papers and books also suggests he is considered important in his field. This seems liek WP:Before was ignored and all issues can be resolved through regular editing. -- Banjeboi 09:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I, too, am disturbed by editors (not only the nominator) removing technically unsourced but potentially sourcable material from the AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment I've noted this strange approach during efforts of WP:COMPOSERS to verify their unreferenced BLPs, these "invisible" changes (removing of uncontentious material) sometimes made the searching more complicated.[4] To some extent I understand, this is a more amusing way of editing than searching for reliable sources and verifying the content of articles - you provoke action, attention and controversy, and the responsibility for your actions is shielded by a guideline or some statements by founder of Wikipedia. You have the right to do so. That's all you need. This is far easier than thankless, complicated and slow searching. If you add sources and remove the unrefBLP template, hardly anyone will notice your action, and moreover, it costs you more time. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Careless nom. All it would've took was a little extra effort to find sources. -- œ^™ 08:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Let's call a spade a spade: this looks like a bad-faith nomination. The silence of the nominator tells a story too. I suggest a snow keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep. I second Xxanthippe's motion for snow keep – even cursory searching shows that his books are very widely held by institutions and that his research publications have substantial citations. This is a slam-dunk on WP:PROF #1. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2010 (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.