Talk:Peter Carruthers (philosopher)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 18 March 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
The text in this entry is in the public domain. Any possible infringements of copyright have been removed I think. It may read like a resume but it is intended to inform the public of the work of one of the most important living philosophers of mind. I don't know how this can be verified except that any philosopher of note would be familiar with Carruthers' work. I intend to add detail to his significant and notable contributions to philosophy of mind.Mark Pharoah (talk) 12:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- This source (http://www.philosophy.umd.edu/Faculty/pcarruthers/) is not in the public domain per "Front page © 2007 Isaac Carruthers". Jeepday (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Advice
At the deletion debate for this article I appear to have been the sole non-Single Purpose Account to argue that this article is entirely inappropriate. well, if it to stay, I'd like ot see it improved.
Firstly, I'd like to apologise on behalf of wikipedia for the anonymous nominator's description of the article as a "vanity page". We generally agree that this is a rude and unwarranted accusation from which wikipedians should refain. I'd also like to point out that "non-notability" is a complex enculturated wikipedia term that can fail to correspond with a real-world meaning.
To improve this article, I'd like to see some independent references. Anything not written by the subject, or his employer, that is reputably published that says anything about the subject, would be good.
An author of the page says that this person is connected to other people with wikipedia pages, and to subjects covered by wikipedia. If this is so, then it is desirable that the article is linked from thos pages in a meaningful way. The fact that the article is a mainspace orphan (no real articles link to it, see [1]) is bad. If Carruthers is notable, he should be relevent to some other article.
Identifying other biographies with similar or worse problems is not generally considered to be a productive argument.
