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. (non-admin closure) Cirt (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was featured in the Matrix Ultimate edition as a speaker on the Philosophy of the Matrix - does this not count as notable? Rory 2nd September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.132.230 (talk) 12:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has an entry in Gale's Contemporary Authors, which, I think, should be enough to confer notability. And Everything I Know I Learned From TV received at least a few reviews. Zagalejo^^^ 20:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:PROF, in my opinion. Has written a substantial number of books that are widely held by academic libraries according to the Worldcat data. For "Body language: representation in action" (MIT press, 3 editions) 406 libraries in the U.S.[1], for "The nature of consciousness" (Cambridge University Press, 6 editions) 454 libraries in the U.S.[2] (marked as "internet resource" but appears to be a book since has an ISBN number; still this could account for higher holding numbers); "The body in mind understanding cognitive processes" (Cambridge University Press, 6 editions) 772 libraries in the U.S.[3] (also marked as "internet resources); "The philosopher at the end of the universe : philosophy explained through science fiction films" (4 editions) 331 libraries in the U.S.[4]; "Animal rights : a philosophical defence" (5 editions) 341 libraries in the U.S.[5]; "The environmental crisis : understanding the value of nature" 282 libraries in the U.S.[6]; and so on (there are several more books). There are substantial numbers, especially for academic books and holdings in academic libraries (I looked through these and the libraries listed there are mostly university and college libraries). There are quite a few in-depth reviews of his work in academic journals and publications, e.g. [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. I looked up some of these in JSTOR. While they were not breathtakenly enthusiastic, they were in-depth analytical and generally positive reviews of his work. There is also some coverage in conventional media. An in-depth interview with him at MonstersandCritics.com[24] (cited in the article and comes up in googlenews search), in Independent[25], another in Independent[26], and a few others, e.g.[27][28]. GoogleBooks search results are substantial[29], and even GoogleScholar (which is usually terrible with citations in humanities) produces fairly substantial results[30]. While there are no big prizes or academic awards here, I think he passes criterion 1 of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep on the basis of the information above. Now, given that this information was all in the accessible free web in the most obvious of places, this was a careless nomination. We do not delete for lack of information in the article, we delete for not being notable. It is a total waste of everyone's time to nominate without checking first. I know its easier to nominate for deletion than to fix, but trying to delete fixable articles does not help the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not careless really, just part of the cleanup of Dan Schneider's vanity spam. Good catch, but good faith not really in doubt I'd say. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One can be careless in perfect good faith. I extend to my colleagues here the assumption that they are doing what they do in the interest of the encyclopedia, rather than to mess things up or be unfair or pursue personal agendas--that's the AGF. But as for being careless, or ignorant, I am careless or ignorant myself quite often enough that I assume other well-intentioned people will sometimes be so also. GF refers to the intention. I hope to be told when I am careless, and I intend to tell others also. If I didn't extend GF to them, I wouldn't bother. In cleaning up a bunch of spam or other junk, it is important to keep in mind that some of the stuff that looks like spam may be justifiable, and check each one. DGG (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2008 (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.