Deletion of John Arthur (philosopher)

Comment: per  and . Reviews of his books demonstrate notability as an author
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:HEYMAN)

Comment: The newly added reviews are enough for , and falsify the nomination statement that the references are all about his death not his work. The new statement from the nominator that we should ignore the new sources because they are "common" is both moving the goalposts and unsupported by policy. Notability is about the depth, independence, reliability, and multiplicity of sources, not about how common they are. Sources are also common for national leaders; does that mean we should consider national leaders non-notable? Then why apply the same reasoning to book authors
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: There are references which could be included which do give evidence of the notability of his work, eg https://www.pdcnet.org/intstudphil/content/intstudphil_2000_0032_0002_0127_0127, https://www.pdcnet.org/phr/content/phr_1997_0106_0003_0461_0463, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1289959?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents, https://search.proquest.com/openview/5a322eafdb52610d327bbe938ce36e61/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=36825, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02336640, https://philpapers.org/rec/LHLJAW, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03612759.2008.10527219?journalCode=vhis20. "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article" . —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NEXIST)

Comment: Passes  and #C1
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:PROF)