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 Keep as per consensus. Warrah (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Levin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

This page does not meet criteria for WP:Notability. .אבי נ (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Could you expand on why you believe he's not notable? He's received significant coverage in many reliable newspapers and news magazines (a google news search of "Michael Levin" and "CUNY" alone gives 117 ghits from The New York Times, Newsworld, USA Today, The Washington Post and many others). general notability guidelines are certainly met as is WP:PROF. One may not agree with Levin's work, but he certainly is notable in his field. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 15:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 16:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 16:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Academics holding fringe views need to be evaluated under WP:BIO standards, but those seem to be met in this case. As noted above, a googlenews search[1] for "Michael Levin" CUNY gives 117 hits, many of which providing specific and detailed coverage of the subject, e.g.[2][3][4]. While the coverage is mostly concentrated over the 1990-92 period, when there were particularly vocal protests related to Levin, the time spread seems to be sufficient to ensure that this is not a BLP1E case. Nsk92 (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Unusual case with non-mainstream views. Seems to have been extensively noted in media. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep His first book at least is highly notable, with multiple reviews in many important philosophy journals [5]. ther other books are widely known also. Notable as an author. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sufficient third-party commentary on his work and ideas to confer notability under WP:CREATIVE and WP:ACADEMIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipeterproject (talk • contribs)
• Strong keep. A truly horrible person, in my opinion, but also a highly notable one. Widely published. Widely discussed in academic and mainstream sources. This is a name that anyone of moderate education recognizes off the bat without research it (well, with some philosophy and ethics background anyway)! Insanely misguided nomination. LotLE×talk 23:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Passes WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2010 (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.