Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randall Auxier

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Auxier (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)

I see that a user removed the notability tag that had been placed in 2015 based on the subject being the editor of a journal per WP:PROF, but if The Personalist Forum doesn't have its own page, how major a journal is it? Also has edited Library of Living Philosophers, but the other editors listed on that page don't have wiki pages, so again I don't think that should meet PROF. Besides that, the subject of this article seems to have no citations from independent sources that would confer notability per WP:GNG. This article seems to be a textbook example of WP:NOTRESUME. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is an article on a candidate who will be trounced in the general election so badly that no one will even notice him being there unless the election is super close. The journal he was editor of was not major, so that does not lead to a pass for being a notable academic, nor does anything else he has done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Who cares about his minor political activities? He's notable as a book author, per WP:AUTHOR. I just added 17 published reviews of 8 of his books to the article. I didn't even search for the remaining titles yet so I suspect there's more to come. That's easily enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is what counts as "significant critical attention"? After re-scanning the article, I disagree. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2018 (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.