Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 30

Image:Manti-1999.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

No consensus to delete - deleting admin was the only "delete" vote, citing only his subjective evaluation of the image's "quality" as rationale for deletion. See WP:IFD#Image:Manti-1999.jpg Reswobslc 23:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - The image was deleted with the reasoning "It's a lineup family photo which does not illustrate any point in particular. This photo is not encyclopedic quality." The person who uploaded the image listed it for deletion at IfD because people are placing the image in selected Mormonism articles where the combination of the article text and the image raised serious WP:BLP concerns. As noted by the deleting admin, the only legitimate place for the photo is the uploader's userpage. WP:CSD#G7 Author requests deletion applies. -- Jreferee t/c 03:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The BLP concerns should be solved simply by removing the image from Anti-Mormon, not by deleting the image. WP:CSD#G7 is not the real issue either, because deletion wasn't the uploader's goal. The uploader's original concern is that he did not want to be associated with the term "Anti-Mormon", not that he genuinely wanted the image deleted. He only nominated his image for deletion, asserting his "copyright", after becoming frustrated that his removal from Anti-Mormon wasn't getting anywhere. Come to think of it, he should be able to expect this removal. In fact, recognizable images of real people really don't belong in articles about controversial subjects without clear and positive references tying that person to that specific viewpoint or term. If a free image of Michael Jordan were included in the Nigger article as an example of a "black" person, he'd be well within his rights to expect its removal - which would not necessitate deleting the image from Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons as a whole. Likewise, we wouldn't delete the images of every Black person from Wikipedia just because somebody might later include them in Nigger. Reswobslc 05:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Although my !vote in the IfD is listed as "Keep", I was ready to change it after the subsequent discussion at the IfD and here. Image is unnecessary for illustrating the point it was being used for in Anti-Mormon, and it is unclear (not to mention contrary to the testimony of the user who posed in and uploaded the image) that the people involved were engaged in any anti-Mormon behavior. In fact, it is not clear what the people are doing at all, which is what makes the picture un-encyclopedic. A year ago, one of the current "Keep" !votes called this image "not appropriate," citing many of the arguments now being given by FCYTravis, Jref, and myself. Finally, it is common courtesy to delete an unnecessary image at the request of a person pictured in it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Too many reasons to fully enumerate, but they include WP:CSD#G7, WP:BLP, and that the consensus of the IFD was to delete. GRBerry 13:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment At what point do the terms of the GFDL (WP:NOREVOKE) begin to count? Does licensing one's contributions "mercilessly" edited or redistributed by others mean anything. And what part of the IfD looks like a consensus to delete, with only one person out of six saying "delete" and a second weakly agreeing? Reswobslc 13:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOREVOKE is mainly concerned with text contributions to WP. If you decide to leave WP, you can't go back and edit out all the text you had previously added. Images are much less integral to the encyclopedia, and not actually mentioned in WP:NOREVOKE. The most convincing arguments by far, I think, are WP:CSD#G7 and WP:BLP and common courtesy (perhaps a form of WP:IAR). --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOREVOKE clearly applies to this image. It's freely available on cc-by-2.5, and I can post it with captions proclaiming the subjects to be anti-Mormon. Feel free to add it to open source image libraries. It's still around. Perhaps they misunderstood the license. However, it's not encyclopedic. This is not a snapshot repository. As such, endorse deletion (as a speedy/IAR deletion, "consensus" was not relevant). Cool Hand Luke 01:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. Unfair vote, the decision to keep the image was unanimous and fair. It is not fair to delete an image even when everyone was obviously going "KEEP! KEEP! KEEP! KEEP!". This shows how even though Wikipedia is trying to turn themself into a democracy, it still seems more like that our government doesn't care. I want it back, but under the promise that it will ONLY be used to represent positive Mormon ordeals and events. Not in the Anti-Morman article. Period. ViperSnake151 16:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• By the way, democracy is a buzzword for mob rule.--19:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WaltCip (talk • contribs)

• I cry Shenanigans! This is BS. The author of the image gave up the rights to the image, and when he finds out that it is being used in a way that he disagrees with, it suddenly is fit for deletion? What about when it was originally posted? Why were there no complaints then? This is a POV decision, and the arguments presented are a smokescreen. Strong KEEP!!! Not to mention you had one whole day of "debate" and then deleted it? Total Bullshit! Bytebear 17:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. Should have been left to another admin to close the discussion after ravis had contributed to the IFD. I don't think there was consensus to delete. Stifle (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Anyone reviewing the IfD should also look at this thread on BLP/N, where FCYTravis gives his reasoning (IMO) more convincingly and in more detail. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Father Vernard Poslusney (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Please note that aI am not the user requesting the undeletion (I am one of the deleting admins), but apparently User:Example555 is struggling with the process. This is the text he was trying to paste: -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

1) A lot more notable than some other pages I’ve seen here. He has three main memorial websites, one with 5,559 hits in its one year of existence. I contacted the Webmaster, who is willing to supply a statcounter log showing multiple hits from 24 countries. He says the log would pop your eyes out. If you do a search on google or yahoo, about 20 pages come up on him.

2) Did it ever occur to Karanacs that the blog posting was copied from one of his memorial web sites? Does anyone do research anymore?

3) All Wikipedia links were copy and pasted, who types out http://www etc. anymore? - 4) Was my page deleted by a child? This is why I concluded the article is being toyed with by young children: Lucasbfr: “Hi mom. I don't expect anyone else to come here anytime soon so hello to you. Yeah I know, I need to keep my room clean.” Wikipedia should set some age requirements for editors, an on-line encyclopedia should not be a playground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Example555 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 30 October 2007

• Lucasbfr's comments on his userpage was intended as a joke (and he's an adult). Also, I endorse deletion. The subject does not meet WP:BIO, and none of the sources used at the article meet our reliable source policy. Most of these websites are self-published sources, and I could not find any detailed works on Vernand Poslusney in newspapers or books. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Example555.

I am bewildered as to why someone keeps deleting this article. Every reason given so far makes no sense.

The first deletion was over notability, this contention could not be more untrue, and there are countless examples of articles with less notability.

The second deletion was a claim that the pic was copyrighted, which is untrue.

The third deletion was because Karanacs found similar information in a blog. The blog was copied right off one of Father Vernard memorial sites, which there may be more of than sites attributed to Brittany Spears, again neutralizing the first notability contention. And who has any control over what someone cut and pasted into a blog. Furthermore, if people are proliferating this information, that is a positive sign of notoriety.

Someone was deleting the links on the site for days claiming they were spam sites, totally untrue and unsupported. Then this Lucasbfr, whose childish dialog grammar led me to believe that I was dealing with an adolescent. Can anyone blame me for questioning the rational of these unreasonable judgements? No one has pointed out one indubitable contention yet, and every time I attempt to dialog I am beleaguered with threatening messages of banning. This is enough to make anyone’s blood boil, particularly paging through some articles that did somehow get okayed.

Just looking at the next deletion; Sky_Eats_Airplane, Andrew Lenahan writes: “million trillion gazillion”. Yes, it must be true, this articles can be deleted by gradeschoolers. Why do I feel like an adult trying to reason with 2 year olds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Example555 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Its mind boggling.

Example555

Take a look at the AfD again and even my endorsement of deletion above. The article does not meet WP:BIO, our policy on notability. Also, there are issues with WP:RS and WP:NOT. If something is covered on the Internet, that does not meet it's notable for Wikipedia. Certain policies must be met, and many editors have agreed that these policies aren't being met for this particular article. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I just did, show me where I'm wrong. And yet there are articles in Wikipedia that Howard Stern with have second thoughts about reading on the air.

Example555

I already did. For one thing, the article fails WP:BIO. There are no reliable sources to support the articles. All the links are self-published sources. These cannot be used because they are not reliable sources. I searched, but I could not find any reliable sources. So, the article fails the third criteria at WP:BIO. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Egad. Endorse speedy closure - Personal attacks and non-sequiturs can hardly be considered a rationale for DRV.--WaltCip 16:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly the problem, how about some valid rational than threats?

Example555

He's saying you're the one making the threats, not the other way around. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm having trouble seeing anywhere that you are right. For one thing, you haven't even remotely established notability. You've been told to see WP:BIO. Let's examine your argument...:
    • 1. You argue WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and then state that because a nonverifiable, nonreliable source has a low number of hits in its entire existence, it is proof of notability? I'm sorry...but a hit counter is the furthest thing from notability. And - 5,559 hits is an extremely low number of hits for a website. And google hits? Come on...even if you were going to use this...20 hits is not notable. I have 700 hits on my own name (and they are all me). I'm not notable.
    • 2. You are claiming a source that was used from an nonreliable source was actually a copyvio from another nonreliable source. Blogs and "memorial pages" are not reliable sources.
    • 3. I don't even understand this argument.
    • 4. A personal attack is not going to help your case.

The AfD was done correctly - it was unanimous and it was open for the required amount of time. You have not been able to remotely establish notability for this person. In addition, if you continue personal attacks, you will probably get your account suspended. And a lack of civility is probably going to keep anyone from wanting to help. Strong Endorse. Smashville 17:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If you can show a proof that this person is notable, we may reconsider the deletion but for now your rationale does not cover this part. For the record, this article was deleted 4 times: The two first times with our deletion process, the 2 latter because you were reposting deleted content without any discussion. The copyright violation was never discussed, as fas as I can see. Finally I am not a child thanks (which explains why it took me so long to write these lines, I am at work). I am sorry if my poor grammar disturbed you, I am not a native speaker and I ocasionally make mistakes. But I'm always happy to learn from my spelling and grammar mistakes. (and I know the joke on my userpage sucks, I'm too busy/lazy to work on it). -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse unanimous deletion, the argument advanced by the appellant seems to be an attempt to forum shop at best and specious at worst. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Unanimous AFD, no process flaws. Article, and nomination here, do not evidence encyclopedic notability. 6K web page hits in a year is nothing. 600K hits a day would also be nothing as that isn't what we are interested in. What we need are independent and reliable published sources. The article demonstrated none. The AFD demonstrated none. The DRV nomination and comments to date demonstrates none. If they exist, and I've been given thus far no reason to believe that they do, any recreation should be done in accordance with the guidance at Wikipedia:Amnesia test and written as an encyclopedia entry, Not as a memorial or obituary. GRBerry 20:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion the third time wasn't because of any of the nonsense you said, but because it was already deleted the second time through the AfD process. Gaming the process by acting like you didn't understand the difference between proposed and speedy deletion didn't help. You also aren't winning any hearts through your tactic of insulting Wikipedians. You might as well just leave and whine to everyone about how unfair Wikipedia is. JuJube 22:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Example555 In the process of compiling information, I was again alarmed at many of the shocking articles traversed. From a plethora, I’ll only quote one as a reference, found while researching celibacy: Ruined orgasm. It was then that I realized that I would be doing a severe disservice to the memory of Father Vernard. As it is becoming very clear at the type of articles accepted, respected and sought. Hence, I withdraw my efforts to have this article associated with this encyclopedia. It would be prudent to pursue a more reputable encyclopedia medium. I apologize, as I was obviously barking up the wrong tree.

Example555

• Okay, I think we can close this now. JuJube 23:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sky_Eats_Airplane (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This band has a last.fm page with 278,900 plays scrobbled on Last.fm http://www.last.fm/music/Sky+Eats+Airplane so the band has a folowing Zombi333 11:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion please see WP:MUSIC. Just like we don't keep websites based on number of visitors or people based on number of Myspace friends, we don't keep bands based on number of plays on a particular website. Besides, even if they'd had a million trillion gazillion plays, we'd still need reliable sources to create an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse A7 deletion, the article qualified for it - even deserved it. Whether they have a following is irrelevant, whether there are independent and reliable sources sufficient to write an article is what is relevant. WP:MUSIC is the usual guideline to meet. GRBerry 13:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per the use of WP:GHITS as means of restoration, rather than WP:RS.--WaltCip 16:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as a textbook example of why we extended A7 to include bands. Stifle (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Dan Jacobson (Taiwan) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

for discussing proposed page! This was for discussion of my proposed page. Restore the page and see what links to it. Jidanni 02:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. it is hard enough plowing thru this forest of instructions so I ended up not asking you first. Jidanni 02:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thomas_H._Chance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Thomas H. Chance is the author of the preeminently authoritative analysis of Plato's dialogue Euthydemus. larvatus 02:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus

• Uh, I get 12 cites for his "Plato's Euthydemus: Analysis of What Is and Is Not Philosophy" on Web of Science, or for his whole academic output for that matter. Any evidence for its authorativeness? Endorse until then. ~ trialsanderrors 02:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you know of a more authoritative study of this dialogue? More importantly, Wikipedia's criteria of notability for academics are definitely satisfied by publication of a significant and well-known academic work. Thus I quote: "Wikipedia editors should consider not only the absolute number of citations (as provided by a citation index) but also the number relative to other publications in the same field which are generally acknowledged to be important." Please do so. Larvatus 04:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus
    • In other words, no new evidence. ~ trialsanderrors 06:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Only a new reference to standing Wikipedia policy. Please address my point. Larvatus 13:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus
        • Larvatus, the burden of evidence lies on you here: it's up to you to demonstrate that the study is authoritative, it's not up to Trialsanderrors to demonstrate that it's not. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion No new information. His analysis was mentioned in the article, and didn't sway the AfD commenters, who voted unanimously to delete. In other words, nothing's changed, valid AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • As proven above, deletion ran counter to the black letter law of Wikipedia. Larvatus 04:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus
    • The only thing Wikipedia has that's even arguably "black letter law" are the Foundation issues. Everything else is either a direct consequence of those, or descriptive results of low-level consensus-forming debates such as this article's afd. —Cryptic 06:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I stand corrected. Even so, this deletion clearly runs counter to standing policy statement on academic notability. One or the other has to go. Larvatus 13:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus
        • I'm sorry, just where is this policy satement on academic notability? Corvus cornix 21:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Here it is. Larvatus 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus
            • No, that's a guideline, not a policy. And which of the notability criteria in that guideline does your professor meet? Corvus cornix 17:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
              • Having published a significant and well-known academic work. Larvatus 18:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus
                • I'm not sure you've proven that his work is significant and well-known. Corvus cornix 20:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
                  • Please see below. Larvatus 03:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)larvatus
    • Oh, well that's different then... or would be, if the "black letter law of Wikipedia" weren't something you just made up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Unanimous AFD, no new information or arguments here, no procedural problems. GRBerry 13:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse unanimous deletion. Deletion review is a place to explain how the deletion process was followed, not to run to the other parent for a better answer. Stifle (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Deletion review is a necessary way station before arbitration. Larvatus 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus
    • Um, what? Stifle (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - Unanimous AFD. In reply to the Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) quote, if a Wikipedia reliable source doesn't say it, you can't include it in a Wikipedia article. Even if he is important, you can't write about it in a Wikipedia article without the information being based on independent reliable source material. Comment - The H.W.Wilson Company's Ancient Philosophy (Waterfield, Robin; March 1995; Volume 15; page 191) reviewed Chance's book "Plato's Euthydemus." Also, there is Google book search and Google scholar search. There might be enough reliable source material for an article on Plato's Euthydemus: Analysis of What Is and Is Not Philosophy (book). -- Jreferee t/c 02:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Does it make sense to cover the book but not its author? Larvatus 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus
    • I can never make sense of what reliable sources choose to cover. You would think they would write about the author. If they don't there's isn't much Wikipedia can do to force them to. Also, violating WP:V, WP:OR, and other article standards to cover Thomas H. Chance in Wikipedia does not make sense. -- Jreferee t/c 15:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
      • For academics to qualify as notable, reliable sources have to cover their work, not their personalities. Do you deny that University of California Press is a reliable source? What about the scholarly journals that reviewed Chance's book on Plato's Euthydemus or published references to it? What exactly is unverifiable or dependent on original research in covering this matter? Larvatus 18:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus
        • Notability is necessary but not sufficient to have an article. Quoting directly from the guideline you seem keen on linking to in every other sentence: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Wikipedia:Verifiability." Sources about this person, as opposed to his work, don't seem to exist; David Eppstein's remark in the afd are particularly troubling. Unless I start seeing a lot more sources and a lot less ruleslawyering, endorse. —Cryptic 02:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Sorry about gratuitous legalisms. Please see the sources identified below. Granted, they pertain to the book and not its author. Do you think it would make sense to cover the former but not the latter? Larvatus 03:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)larvatus
        • Are you claiming that the University of California Press has no relationship with Thomas H. Chance? Only reliable source material that is independent of Thomas H. Chance and those associated with Thomas H. Chance counts towards meeting WP:N. The general notability guideline is clear on this. If the University of California Press has a relationship with Chance, then their material does not count towards meeting WP:N. The independence requirement is one way Wikipedia separates itself from the rest of the Internet. The independent scholarly journals that reviewed Chance's book on Plato's Euthydemus or published references to it may have material that could be used in a Wikipedia article on the book. If the independent book reviews included biographical information on Chance, then that could be used in a Wikipedia article on the person. Book reviews do not usually include biographical information, but if you have information to the contrary, please post it here. As for academics qualifying as notable, I think you are confusing importance/significance notability with reliable source notability. If there is not enough reliable source material for the Thomas H. Chance article, then the biography will not meet Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. If a Thomas H. Chance article cannot meet Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, then it is deleted. A Wikipedia article is not a reward for being important/significant. A Wikipedia article is a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. -- Jreferee t/c 02:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Here are some previously written, verifiable factual references to Thomas Hugh Chance and his book on Plato's Euthydemus:
          • In The Blackwell Guide to Ancient Philosophy, Blackwell, 2003, p. 69, Christopher John Shields cites Chance's book as the only authority on Euthydemus among 13 commentaries and discussions of Plato’s individual dialogues, authored by internationally renowned scholars that include John Burnet, E.R. Dodds, Terence Irwin, Richard Kraut, and Paul Woodruff.
          • Michael Cormack credits Chance's analysis of Euthydemus in his discussion of that dialogue in Plato’s Stepping Stones: Degrees of Moral Virtue, Continuum International Publishing, 2006.
          • In Plato’s Introduction of Forms (Cambridge University Press, 2004), at p. 318, R.M. Dancy argues in regard of Euthydemus 301a-b, that Socrates engages in a sophistical spoofing of a straightforward question by Dionysodorus, misreading it as a trivial self-predication, against Chance's analysis of Socrates' reading as a self-identity, at pp. 181-182 of his book.
          • In Acts of Hope: Creating Authority in Literature, Law, and Politics, (University Of Chicago Press, 1994), James Boyd White writes on p. 41: "In the Euthydemus, the effort is to distinguish Socrates from others who are similar to him in a different respect, namely the teachers of eristic argument, who succeed in confusing their auditors, as Socrates also does, but by logical tricks rather than dialectic. See Thomas H. Chance, Plato’s Euthydemus: Analysis of What Is and What Is Not Philosophy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), especially 13-21." White repeats this reference verbatim in "Plato's Crito: The authority of Law and Philosophy", published in The Greeks and Us: Essays in Honor of Arthur W. H. Adkins, edited by Robert B. Louden and Paul Schollmeier (University Of Chicago Press, 1996), on p. 133.
          • In Platonic Questions: Dialogues with the Silent Philosopher, Penn State Press, 2000, on p. 189, Diskin Clay discusses "the extreme case of the Euthydemus" as treated by Rosamund Kent Sprague, Plato's Use of Fallacy (1962), and Thomas H. Chance, Plato’s Euthydemus: Analysis of What Is and What Is Not Philosophy (1991). As far as I know, these are the only book-length treatments of Plato's Euthydemus published in the XXth century.
          • In Plato’s Craft of Justice, (SUNY Press, 1996), on p. 81, Richard D. Parry writes: "Now there is an ambiguity in the notion of good fortune in this passage. [Euthydemus 279d-280b] Good fortune can mean the chance occurrence that results in something good happening to one; it can also mean the good result itself." In a note to this comment on p. 118 Parry credits Chance's discussion of the relevant passage on pp. 57-65 of his book, wherein Chance makes the distinction he is exploiting in subsequent discussion.
          • In the Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy of Religion, Blackwell, 1998, at p. 13, Charles Taliaferro writes: "Thomas Chance and I discuss various uses of the adversary method in philosophy in "Philosophers, Red Tooth and Claw," Teaching Philosophy (1991). Chance has published a superb study of philosophical method in Plato’s Euthydemus: Analysis of What Is and Is Not Philosophy."
          • Chance's book is cited in Ann N. Michelini, "Socrates Plays the Buffoon: Cautionary Protreptic in Euthydemus", The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 121, No. 4 (Winter, 2000), pp. 509-535, Richard D. Parry, "The Craft of Ruling in Plato's Euthydemus and Republic", Phronesis, Volume 48, Number 1, February, 2003, pp. 1-28, and Sara Rappe, "Father of the Dogs? Tracking the Cynics in Plato's Euthydemus", Classical Philology, Vol. 95, No. 3 (Jul., 2000), pp. 282-303
          • C.C.W. Taylor, editor, From the Beginning to Plato: Routledge History of Philosophy Volume 1, Routledge, 2003; Chance's book is cited by G.B. Kerferd in the chapter on the sophists, on p. 269, and by Hugh H. Benson in the chapter on Socrates and the beginnings of moral philosophy, on pp. 347 and 349.
          • The Greek Sophists, edited and translated by Tania Gergel and John M. Dillon, Penguin Classics, 2003, cites Chance's book on p. xxviii, as one of two recommended discussions of Euthydemus and Dionysodorus.
          • Gerald Alan Press, Who Speaks for Plato?: Studies in Platonic Anonymity, Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, p. 192, singles out T.H. Chance as continuing the tetralogical analysis originated in 1630 by Samuel Petit and extended in the XIXth century by A.W. Winckelmann and F.G. Welcker, into the present century.
          • Some reviews of Chance's book:
          • Christopher Kirwan, The Classical Review, 44, 1994, 400
          • Stephen Allen Stertz, The Classical World 88, 1994-1995, 224
          • Rosamond Kent Sprague, Journal of History of Philosophy 32, 1994, 127-128.
          • Robin Waterfield, Ancient Philosophy 15, 1995, 191-199.
          • Hélène Perdicoyianni, Les Études Classiques 63, 1995, 179.
          • M. Meulder, Revue Belge de Philologie et d'Histoire, 1995 73 (1): 175-176.
          • The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1993, p. 240
          • Bibliographic references:
          • Luc Brisson, Frédéric Plin, Platon, 1990-1995: bibliographie, Vrin, 1999, p. 113, entry 7639.
          • Luc Brisson, Benoît Castelnérac, Frédéric Plin, Platon, 1995-2000: bibliographie, Vrin, 2004, p. 111, entry 9479.
          • Andrew D. Dimarogonas, Synopsis: An Annual Index of Greek Studies, CRC Press, 1999, lists reviews of Chance's book on p. 79, entry 2779; p. 123, entry 3978; p. 130, entry 4195.
          • I hope that this list will suffice to establish academic notability of Thomas Chance and his book on Plato's Euthydemus.
          • Larvatus 03:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)larvatus

Again, what you have shown is that the book may be notable. But from which of those sources can you write a biography of the author? Corvus cornix 03:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I defer to your wisdom. Can you cite an instance of Wikipedia covering a book but not its known author? Larvatus 06:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)larvatus

It's not relevant. Notability is not inherited. -- 68.156.149.62 15:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, notability of a book does not always imply the notability of the author. See Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. -- Jreferee t/c 17:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Microskope‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

dont know what is above article, nominated to speedy deletion --Avinesh Jose 10:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• It was a very short article in a foreign language, looked like Turkish to me. Didn't look like anything encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Based on some google searching with the text of the deleted article, I'd agree that it was in Turkish. As it was in a foreign language, it is inappropriate on the English Wikipedia. GRBerry 13:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)