Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/101 Philosophy Problems
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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) Go Phightins! 01:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 101 Philosophy Problems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tagged for notability issues in April 2012, a search turned up barely anything notable regarding the topic except a few PDF's and reviews. Found sources via a search do not class as reliable. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Added sources and toned down articles as an advert (possible COI). Basing Keep on WP:NBOOK #1 (multiple reviews). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps unrelated(?), Martin Cohen wrote a polemic about Wikipedia in the Times Higher Education on August 28, 2008.[1] One week later a user called "The Philosophical Penguin" created this article. The same user created another article, also a book by Martin Cohen, Wittgenstein's Beetle and Other Classic Thought Experiments. That's about all that user has ever done on Wikipedia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has sufficient reviews to be notable; may also (as mentioned in the article) be notable as an innovative and influential philosophy book. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:29, 21 November 2012 (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.