Talk:Eugene Lewis

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government / Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Vanity?

Is this a vanity page? It looks like it might be, but I could be wrong. Can anyone make an argument for why it is not? Still A Student 14:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still A Student 23:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that if a person is both a published academic and a former provost of a college, then it is useful to have a stub on that person, for various reasons. . .such as for people trying to do research in a certain field. However, the rhetoric would have to be toned down for this article to be NPOV. Words like "influential" and "effective" ought to be deleted. I didn't write the original article, but it would only take me a couple of minutes to revise it. --Shakantala 21:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and deleted the terms "influential" and "critically acclaimed"; these two things may be true, but there was a lack of citation showing which critics acclaim him, which people are influenced by him, etc. I believe that, now that this page is less glowing, it gives off the impression of a "vanity page" much less than it did before. I believe the article should be kept for several reasons: research on political bureaucracy, or on provosts of New College, etc. --Shakantala 18:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree article should be kept. Lewis was a force of nature and was instrumental in the state college system bailout "saving" New College, which relationship (between Florida government, incl. Governor DeSantis and the academic body) is highly strained to say the least.

As to the question of when he retired, that was 2007, though I didn't update as I don't have a citation handy. ForestMars (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussion

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eugene_Lewis (aeropagitica) 15:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ardent critic of the misogyny underlying the works of CS Lewis?

The work cited (2) does nothing to substantiate the claim that Eugene Lewis was an "ardent critic of the misogyny underlying the works of CS Lewis". This surprising claim is far outside of his area of expertise or the contents of his available, searchable publications and should be removed if it can't be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.224.154.179 (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having known Gene personally, he never mentioned anything about CS Lewis, and I would say such a surprising claim is at best a wonton exaggeration. ForestMars (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]