Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Cain (professor)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. --DrBat 14:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A thorough Googling reveals some achievements, but nothing beyond the level normally expected of a university professor. Not notable. -- Ashenai 14:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nn vanity. Same seems to go for his book's article, An Evocation of Kierkegaard. CLW 15:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep he seems to be David W Cain, also author of "Freedom: The condition of faith", "Reckoning with Kierkegaard: Christian faith and dramatic literature". Also a book review "Kierkegaard's Relations to Hegel Reconsidered". Authoring 3+ books is good enough for me. Dlyons493 16:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd just like to note that getting a book published is remarkably easy, for a college professor. My father is a professor, and has authored several books. I would not consider him notable; nor would I consider Dr. Cain notable unless his books had seen significant circulation outside his own university. This does not appear to be the case. --Ashenai 22:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as David William Cain appears to be a published author of several religious books over the past three decades. Hall Monitor 20:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Googling "David William Cain" gets only 22 results. And apparently there's some other David W Cain who's a lawyer (see http://www.davidwcain.com/).--DrBat 22:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be, but I was not applying the Google test to his full name. The Amazon bookstore and other sources appear to refer to this author inconsistently as well so those results do not surprise me. Hall Monitor 22:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Googling "David William Cain" gets only 22 results. And apparently there's some other David W Cain who's a lawyer (see http://www.davidwcain.com/).--DrBat 22:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable academic. / Peter Isotalo 23:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, seems more notable than Cyrus Farivar. Kappa 23:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... "Cyrus Farivar" gets 76,000 hits on Google. I'd say that makes Dr. Cain a whole lot less notable. --Ashenai 00:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There is nothing in Google's terms of service which indicate that the web indexing service is intended to be, or functions as a measure of "notability" by any definition other than "gets a lot of Google hits". Certainly notable people have accomplished much without the level of attention the World Wide Web foists upon "American Idol" contestants or "Extended Star Wars Universe" weaponry. Dystopos 16:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is true; because of this, we have to be careful when using Google to "prove" that something or someone is non-notable. However, if something gets, say, 100,000 unique Google hits, that generally means that 100,000 people cared enough about it to put something about it up on the Internet. Whatever our personal opinion of "American Idol" contestants or Star Wars weaponry, it is not for us to decide whether or not they are notable. Google is a good indicator of the amount of public interest in a topic, and enough public interest can make anything notable, regardless of any objective merits it may or may not have. --Ashenai 17:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, in the case of Cyrus Farivar, that his name is attached to articles reprinted from MacWorld, and that his hoax and the reaction to it became newsworthy, and was of particular interest to people who actively discuss things online. None of these phenomena make Farivar more intrinsically notable than Cain, they only create a lot of mentions which are indexed by Google. So, I'm not saying that the public interest failed to make something of Farivar, but the lack of Google-indexed public interest should not detract from the achievements of Cain. Kierkegaard is extremely notable, the study of Kierkegaard is quite notable. Individuals prominent in the study of Kierkagaard are, also, sufficiently notable. I'm going to vote now. Keep. Dystopos 19:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, but I must say that I have still not seen proof that Dr. Cain is "prominent in the study of Kierkegaard". His primary claim to fame seems the be that he has written three books; as I have pointed out above, this is in no way remarkable or worthy of note for a university professor, unless it is shown that his books achieved at least some degree of circulation, which does not seem to be the case. Basically, I do not believe every university professor is notable, and I have not seen anything to distinguish Dr. Cain from other professors. --Ashenai 19:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, in the case of Cyrus Farivar, that his name is attached to articles reprinted from MacWorld, and that his hoax and the reaction to it became newsworthy, and was of particular interest to people who actively discuss things online. None of these phenomena make Farivar more intrinsically notable than Cain, they only create a lot of mentions which are indexed by Google. So, I'm not saying that the public interest failed to make something of Farivar, but the lack of Google-indexed public interest should not detract from the achievements of Cain. Kierkegaard is extremely notable, the study of Kierkegaard is quite notable. Individuals prominent in the study of Kierkagaard are, also, sufficiently notable. I'm going to vote now. Keep. Dystopos 19:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is true; because of this, we have to be careful when using Google to "prove" that something or someone is non-notable. However, if something gets, say, 100,000 unique Google hits, that generally means that 100,000 people cared enough about it to put something about it up on the Internet. Whatever our personal opinion of "American Idol" contestants or Star Wars weaponry, it is not for us to decide whether or not they are notable. Google is a good indicator of the amount of public interest in a topic, and enough public interest can make anything notable, regardless of any objective merits it may or may not have. --Ashenai 17:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There is nothing in Google's terms of service which indicate that the web indexing service is intended to be, or functions as a measure of "notability" by any definition other than "gets a lot of Google hits". Certainly notable people have accomplished much without the level of attention the World Wide Web foists upon "American Idol" contestants or "Extended Star Wars Universe" weaponry. Dystopos 16:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... "Cyrus Farivar" gets 76,000 hits on Google. I'd say that makes Dr. Cain a whole lot less notable. --Ashenai 00:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand as per WP:BIO which states "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." are notable enough for articles. With three books published, he probably has achieved this. Capitalistroadster 01:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, borderline notability... but I think it's safer to keep than to not. gren GuReN6 01:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nonnotable academic, possible vanity. --Angr/tOk t@ mi 06:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but merge his book back into this as it's so short. Alf melmac 10:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Noted scholar.--Nicodemus75 05:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep please this person is notable we can merge the book article but still we should not erase something like this Yuckfoo 20:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. ··gracefool |☺ 17:57, 25 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.