Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Pojman

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 20:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Pojman

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

WP:GNG - References are for his obituary, which appears to be his one source of notability (his death).

He should not be confused with his father Louis Pojman who is might be notable. His father kicked him some editing on his book... which editing a later version of his father's book should be be seen as notability. PeterWesco (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I strongly feel that the article should stay up. Pojman was not only notable for co-editing Environmental Ethics with his father, but also as sole editor of Food Ethics. (He also has a byline in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.) He was also extremely unique as a professor and activist in Baltimore. This fact is reflected in multiple secondary sources. Some of these come from the occasion of his death—others don't. (By the way, Peter Wesco, the page for his father has virtually no references, so if you did some research to confirm his notability it would be great if you would add it there. Based on your recent claims at the page on Riki Ott I can't help but feel as though you may be targeting pages I've worked on. Please forgive me if this is just paranoia on my part.) Ok, peace & blessings y'all. groupuscule (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems like a nice guy, but there are basically no grounds for passing WP:PROF, when you consider the special circumstance that it's inherited, and people are really citing his dad, with him just editing a later edition of the work (aside from that, his citations are completely unremarkable). Similarly, I question whether there is enough significant coverage to pass the GNG: the obituaries cited in the article (insert: the single Baltimore Sun piece aside) are from the campus newspaper, and the website of a local coffeeshop he frequented; neither of these are independent of him in any real sense. Ray^Talk 00:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But... he is the sole editor of Food Ethics and has made other contributions. Furthermore, you can say what you will about the Baltimore Sun but it's the biggest newspaper in town... groupuscule (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there is a Baltimore sun obituary, but I thought the nominator already noted that. I was pointing out that the other ones are unremarkable. I've edited my original remark to make that clear. Ray^Talk 22:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pojman's connection, as a professor, to Occupy Baltimore and other local activist causes—as described in the Baltimore Sun—is already enough to demonstrate notability. His unique work on anarchist education, as described in the Towerlight and in Baltimore Magazine, also makes him notable. Substantial arguments have not been addressed by those who would delete, this edit notwithstanding. I would add that the primary argument given, that notability comes only from his death, is specious—even in obituaries his death was much less remarkable than his life. I recommend that we keep the article. If others are still not sure, we can solicit discussion from relevant WikiProjects. groupuscule (talk) 17:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment 1. Being a local activist, or an activist in general, does not grant notability. Thus, your comment "is already enough to demonstrate notability" is incorrect. One article in the Baltimore sun also does not bestow notability nor does being associated with a group - Notability is not inherited. 2. Watch closely what you do in regards to: "If others are still not sure, we can solicit discussion from relevant WikiProjects" <- This would be considered: Wikipedia:Canvassing PeterWesco (talk) 01:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would not be canvassing. Posting notifications on WikiProject talk pages saying that "a deletion dicussion on article X that is within the scope of this project is underway, you might want to look" is in no means or any way canvassing at all. Saying "article X is being deleted, come vote and keep" would. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you have have described... I agree. As I interpreted the original comment, "If others are still not sure, we can solicit discussion from relevant WikiProjects"... I do not agree. I interpreted it as, "Let me find some people by canvassing". If my interpretation was incorrect, I sincerely apologize. PeterWesco (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't investigated any further claims of notability, but must point out that the Baltimore Sun obituary is about Pojman's life, not his death as claimed by the nominator. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, and most English speaking nations, an obituary is about a person's life... a narrative. As described here [1]: notice of the death of a person, often with a biographical sketch, as in a newspaper. PeterWesco (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sort of obituary that is not a RS is that written by the family. Editorial obituaries written by the editorial staff of a reliable paper are as significant as their news reporting. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm actually not all that impressed by the material in that obit, which is about his personal life, not his work. The significance is with respect to the GNG, that they thought he was worth a full editorial obit. With respect to WP:PROF, although he was as associate professor, and only some of them are considered notable here, I think he meets the requirement as an expert on Kant. Being selected to write the article in the Stanford Encyclopedia is significant evidence of that, besides his publications. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment Thank you for: 1. The clarification on editorial obits. Noted for future concerns. 2. His GNG in re: Stanford Encyclopedia. PeterWesco (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --do ncr am 03:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think that a long obit in a relatively well-known newspaper should at least make someone somewhat notable. 173.13.150.22 (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2013 (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.