Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew W. McKeon

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. ✗plicit 00:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew W. McKeon

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

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, top cited work appears to only have 20 citations in scholar, and no reviews on any published books. Psychastes (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NPROF. Appears that the article's original author created a number of articles for various philosophy professors at Michigan State University of questionable notability. Longhornsg (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Philosophy, Connecticut, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My off-wiki experience evaluating philosophers is that it's kind of strange. They often don't have many journal citations, nor books with many reviews, but the other philosophers in the same subdiscipline still have a strong idea who the important ones are, and I don't know how to guess that from the public record. In the case of McKeon, we definitely have nothing in the citation record nor the article that would suggest notability. Searching for reviews of his book The Concept of Logical Consequence is confusing because of Etchemendy's very notable and well cited book with the same title. I found only one review, by Núñez Puertas in Apuntes Filosóficos [1], far from enough even to justify an article on the book instead of its author. He does appear to have another book, Arguments and Reason-Giving, for which I found no reviews at all. In the absence of access to whatever information the philosophers use to evaluate their own, I think we have to go on what we can see for ourselves, and that's not very much. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find anything that supports WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR, with no reviews found on JSTOR. I simply cannot find any strong arguments in support of notability. --hroest 15:13, 11 May 2024 (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.