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 per withdrawal of nomination. Non-admin closure.--JForget 22:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Pappas[edit]

George Pappas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable college professor. No sources, not able to verify, only a handful of relevant Google hits. Amazingly, this article has been around for five years. Realkyhick 16:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Nomination withdrawn. Sufficient sources have been added to prove the subject's notability well above the standards of WP:PROF. No need to proceed further with this nomination; move to close. Realkyhick 05:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Yeshivish 16:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Yeshivish 16:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. GreenJoe 16:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The "widely used" book mentioned in the article indicates notability in his field; this link indicates it's being used in courses and calls it "the best collection of essays" on a particular problem within epistemology. This review of the book he edited seems to suggest he's a leading figure in his field. These cropped up on the first two google pages of his name along with "epistemology" (to filter out others with the same name), so it appears someone with more expert knowledge could easily establish his notability in the article. Suggest mentioning it one of the Philosophy-related wikiprojects to remedy the "lack of activity" issue. Thomjakobsen 16:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Fair enough, if those folks can help out, I'll gladly reconsider. If he's that notable, this article may need expansion instead. I'll keep an open mind here. Realkyhick 18:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've added and sourced enough that it meets the first three criteria at WP:PROF - satisfying just one makes them "definitely notable". I've also given it a "philosopher-stub" tag and added it to Category:Epistemologists, which according to this recent proposal would see it coming to the attention of the Epistemology task force, presumably to be expanded and improved. Thomjakobsen 20:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that's much better. I think we can keep this now. Kinda surprising that someone of his apparent reputation hasn't had more attention, but sometimes these kid of articles tend to get buried in the huge mountain of stuff that is Wikipedia. Realkyhick 05:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment He's also responsible for an entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which to me absolutely establishes that he's viewed as a leading expert in epistemology. Thomjakobsen 17:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but in serious need of improvement. UTAFA 20:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nominator withdrawl.--Miamite 08:31, 9 September 2007 (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.