Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David F. Haight

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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David F. Haight

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

An academic who does not seem to pass WP:PROF. He has no significant citations in Google scholar; he has written one book, for which I can find no reviews beyond a brief mention in Recent Titles in Philosophy. Sourced only to a search engine for philosophy publications, and no other sources seem to be available; the bulk of the article here is not supported by the source. Was prodded as an unsourced biography of a living person, with a prod2 that he does not meet WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. And as a minor party failed candidate for a major political position he also fails WP:POLITICIAN. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I gave the prod 2. many academic people are notable, but it requires doing work that is recognized as being a substantial and authoritative contribution to the profession, as shown by publications or by reliable sources. One book from a minor publisher is not a substantial contribution unless it should happen to be widely noticed, and form the basis of wide comment and discussion and citation . There is no good index of citations in philosophy or the other humanities, but we can use google Scholar as a rough substitute -- and it shows not only that it has not been widely noticed, but that nobody at all within its scope has ever linked or referred to it: [1] , and that essentially nobody has ever linked or referred to any of the articles or other publications of this author.[2]. In most fields of academic work, only about one half of published articles ever get cited, and these are in the half that does not. No evidence at all for notability as a scholar. no evidence for notability in any other way either. Being the candidate of a minor party for office is not notability, and there is nothing further to be found. Most of the articles prodded as unsourced BLP do turn out to have sources and be about notable people, once the work is done on them; but not all of them do. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DGG has summarized the situation well. I had prodded it a few days ago. Another editor removed that tag and added a single source, which lists the subject's papers.[3] There are only two of them. I'm afraid that does not establish the person as being a notable academic. Will Beback talk 19:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: You will find a lot more references under "David Frederick Haight" and "David F. Haight" and on Google Books. For example, there is a "Reply to David F. Haight" in the The philosophy of P.F. Strawson by Lewis Edwin Hahn. (Sir Peter Strawson is a well-known Oxford philosopher.) Why would a reply be needed if he is not notable? There should be more research and don't just rely on online sources for a subject like philosophy. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are few enough hits in the two Google book searches you mention to look through them all by hand. I don't think they contradict the assertion that he has few publications and (more to the point) few citations to his publications. As for the "Reply to David F. Haight": that is merely one of his publications, in an edited volume of papers each of which is published together with a "Reply to [author]" response. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. It would be great to hear from a real philosopher on this one. Are there any out there on Wikipedia who would care to comment? — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - well, I'm not a professional philosopher, but I have a degree in philosophy, and from my limited perspective I don't think he's sufficiently notable for an article, at least going by the material available on Google Books and Scholar. If there was more about him out there somewhere then he might be, but as it is he just doesn't seem to have attracted enough attention to pass WP:PROF requirements. Robofish (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not a real philosopher in fact not a philosopher at all, but the GS cites seem inadequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. Many good, intelligent and influential people are not notable. That's just how it is. Wikipeterproject (talk) 02:04, 31 January 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.