Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Feldman (philosopher)

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.

Fred Feldman (philosopher)

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sal2100 (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Fred Feldman (philosopher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. After combing through multiple search engines, per WP:BEFORE, no WP:RS-compliant significant coverage that would satisfy notability guidelines was found. Sal2100 (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep: Nomination withdrawn, based on the arguments and citations presented below. Sal2100 (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, People, Philosophy, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. Sal2100 (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: About a dozen publication with over 100 cites and numerous awards. Could be an WP:NPROF pass. Curbon7 (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: Not making a judgement on the papers/potential for "substantial contribution" but the awards seem to almost entirely be local awards, not ones that would count as highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 21:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  Concur. Curbon7 (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems to meet at WP:AUTHOR and WP:NPROF based on the multiple books he has written have been reviewed by reliable sources stretching over decades, impact on the academic community. (Here's the seven that were first, there are more, in searches/easiest to share. If there's some reason these reviews wouldn't meet those requirements, please ping me so I can learn):

• Fred Feldman, Distributive Justice: Getting What We Deserve from Our Country By: Mendola, Joseph, Ethics, 00141704, , Vol. 127, Issue 4
• What is This Thing Called Happiness? by Fred Feldman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Pp. xv + 286. H/b £36.00, P/b £16.99., Mind, Volume 122, Issue 487, July 2013, Pages 820–823
• Fred Feldman, What Is This Thing Called Happiness?, Oxford UP, 2010, 286 pp., $45.00 (hbk), ISBN 9780199571178. Reviewed by Michael J. Zimmerman, University of North Carolina at Greensboro in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2010.07.06
• Skelton, Anthony (2013). Review of Fred Feldman, What is This Thing Called Happiness?. Philosophical Quarterly 63 (251):395-398.
• Moral Obligation, Circumstances, and Deontic Foci (A Rejoinder to Fred Feldman). Hector-Neri Castañeda, Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition Vol. 57, No. 2 (Oct., 1989), pp. 157-174 (18 pages)
• Fred Feldman and the Cartesian Circle. Peter J. Markie Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition Vol. 31, No. 6 (Jun., 1977), pp. 429-432 (4 pages)
• Reviewed Work: Pleasure and the Good Life by Fred Feldman Review by: Michael Ridge Mind New Series, Vol. 114, No. 454 (Apr., 2005), pp. 414-417 (4 pages)

Skynxnex (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• Leaning keep based on obvious length of career and productivity. BD2412 T 02:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks to clearly meet WP:PROF by citations, with GS top works 815,485,447,331,268 (all single authored) [1]. Some of these are books, which won't get that many citations without getting multiple reviews, so I'd be very surprised in WP:AUTHOR were not met too. Could the nominator explain why they believed PROF & AUTHOR were not met? Espresso Addict (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
• There are reviews at [2], [3], [4], [5] and many others. Looks like an easy pass of WP:AUTHOR. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:PROF#C1 and WP:AUTHOR as detailed above. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

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.