Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Ehrlich

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Philip Ehrlich

[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!

Philip Ehrlich (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)

No claims of non-academic notability, and no evidence that he passes the average professor test. Discussion at a relevant Wikiproject didn't turn up any further evidence of notability. JBL (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. The citation counts are not actually bad for such a low-citation subject but they become much less impressive when one realizes that two of the top five listed in Google Scholar are edited volumes and one more is an erratum. A few reviews for a couple of edited volumes don't count for much, certainly not enough for WP:AUTHOR. And there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The entry for the erratum appears to be Google Scholar being weird and combining citations to the erratum with those for the original paper. XOR'easter (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. The article does not make the case that the subject is notable (under any of the notability criteria), and some outside effort has also failed to make the case. Mgnbar (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet any of the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Delete To evaluate someone who works in the philosophy of mathematics, I'd look for book reviews first, and a few do exist [1][2][3], but his two books were co-edited collections rather than treatises he authored himself. I'd hesitate to call that the kind of "body of work" that the notability guideline for authors asks for. Nor does it seem like those two co-edited collections attracted more than a baseline level of attention. I'm not seeing prestigious awards or journal editorships, either. XOR'easter (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2020 (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.