The result of the debate was keep moink 01:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Did't see any remarkable credentials beyond what thousands of other philosophy professor might have. Esprit15d 16:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Answer (from the apparently less-than-credible initiator of the article in question): I apologise for not catching on immediately that you had created a separate discussion page on this issue. Anyway: Your objection is not a sound one. Boghossian is one of the leading contemporary philosophers in his fields of interest, and has a natural place in any serious catalogue of contemporary philosophers. I hope that you will consult a member of the philosophy project, before you consider similar action against philosophy-related articles and stubs in the future. While the maintenance work of "recent changes patrollers" are important, they should not interrupt the work of the projects concerned with making wikipedia a leading source of knowledge. -- Thorsen 16:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep moink 01:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Did't see any remarkable credentials beyond what thousands of other philosophy professor might have. Esprit15d 16:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Answer (from the apparently less-than-credible initiator of the article in question): I apologise for not catching on immediately that you had created a separate discussion page on this issue. Anyway: Your objection is not a sound one. Boghossian is one of the leading contemporary philosophers in his fields of interest, and has a natural place in any serious catalogue of contemporary philosophers. I hope that you will consult a member of the philosophy project, before you consider similar action against philosophy-related articles and stubs in the future. While the maintenance work of "recent changes patrollers" are important, they should not interrupt the work of the projects concerned with making wikipedia a leading source of knowledge. -- Thorsen 16:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply