Talk:Willem Adelaar

Severe notability issues

This article has no independent secondary sources and I find nothing in searches to indicate the subject meets the standards of WP:GNG or WP:SCHOLAR. This is probably a good candidate for deletion. Snow talk 05:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Adelaar is definitely a notable linguist. Being "Professor" in Europe is equivalent to a named professor chair in the US. He has made a more than significant impact on the study of Andean languages. He is associate editor of IJAL the main scholarly journal for the field of American Indian linguistics. This festschrift has been published in his honor. This all means that he passes WOP:SCHOLAR on multiple accounts.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see it, Maunus. To each of your points in turn: being called "Professor" in Europe is not automatically analagous to being a chair in the U.S., but we can look into the Dutch conventions and Adelaar's specific position at Leiden. Can you please demonstrate with reliable sources (or at a minimum, analytics) that he has made a more than significant impact on the study of Andean languages? Being an associate professor does not qualify him under WP:SCHOLAR; only a chief editor will suffice. As to the festschrift, are you arguing that it is equivalent to the condition of receiving "a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level"? Because I'm not sure I agree with that in particular, and the festschrift doesn't work as a source for verifying anything about Adelaar, since he's not the subject of it's contents. I could be wrong about that as some pages are missing, but I see no indication in the TOC of a missing foreward or any other material that discusses Adelaar or his work in any substantial fashion; the author of one section references him briefly, but not in a manner sufficient to establish the above.

Mind you, though the existence of the work does suggest a possibility that appropriate secondary sources exist, but I just haven't found any myself so far. Do you know of anything along these lines? And remember, even if all of those points above had been non-controversially met, there's also this from WP:SCHOLAR: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability." Remember, WP:GNG comes before the specific criteria of WP:SCHOLAR; that is, you have to meet the basic independent and secondary verification for notability, and then you apply WP:SCHOLAR's requirements on top of that not instead of. But I'm not in any rush here. I'll keep looking for sources and you may already know of something which may suffice -- be sure to let me know if you do. Snow talk 06:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Note also Maunus that I've just raised an issue on Talk:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, where I know you contribute as well, that is tangentially related to this one in that Adelaar's research is referenced in it. They are largely distinct issues, in reality, but I thought you might be interested all the same. Snow talk 06:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong, if someone meets GNG they do not have to meet SCHOLAR or any of the specific criteria (the specific criteria are guidelines meant to help us assess when an academic is notable, not an extra hurdle for academics to pass). Also you are setting an unreasonably high standard relative to the general practice of academic biographies, and you seem not to have read SCHOLAR in detail since for example it specifically mentions Festschriften as something that shows notability in the field. People who dont make a significant impact are not given festschriften. Also read the preface of the festschrift, which is a reliable and significant second hand source about him and his career. It also specifies that he is not an associate professor, but that he holds a named chair that was created specifically for him. Furthermore he was knighted for his academic achievements in 2014 - and event about which there are several Dutch language sources online.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point as to general notability; the point is you can't just rely on the "special considerations" list of WP:Scholar; you still need secondary sources. I didn't see any mention of a preface in the TOC for the festschiften, but that may suffice for this purpose, especially as you say it confirms his chair position. But the article can't pass GNG without some secondary sourcing. As to "People who dont make a significant impact are not given festschiften", I find that a dubious claim and certainly one not supported anywhere in Wikipedia policy that I know of, WP:SCHOLAR included. But I'll try to find a more complete version of the work and check the preface out before I settle on my ultimate opinion. Note: I wrote the above before you edited your post to add the fact that he had been knighted. Any sources treating that would certainly qualify as as appropriate secondary sourcing. I'm not sure why you didn't start there, frankly, as that was the main point of contention. Snow talk 14:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Because being an Americanist linguist myself I know that Adelaar is one of the most notable figures in the field, but I did not have immediate access to sources to demonstrate this (but assumed they were easily found) and was unaware of his recent knighting.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've a formal background in linguistics myself and was unfamiliar with the name, but in any event, I think secondary sources addressing his knighting should satisfy the essential criteria. Thanks for addressing the concerns. Snow talk 14:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

He is most known to Americanists specifically. Btw. I realize that you probably were motivated by the way Adelaar was used as an authority in promotion of a fringe theory at the other page and that coming from that perspective one looks more critically on notability. However I think it is worth considering that under GNG academics are at an enormous disadvantage in terms of notability relative to other more mediatized professions, and that academic biographies are already vastly outnumbered by one hit wonders, struggling actors and internet freaks. To enforce the notability guidelines stricter than they need be on academic biographies are only going to add to the general imbalance that already means that porn stars and youtubers are much better represented than scholars and scientists on wikipedia. For that reason alone I tend to be generous when I evaluate the notability of scholars, and if there is enough sources to write a short bio sketch that basically means that we are probably dealing with a fairly notable scholar.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Well you are correct that I followed the link back here trying to get some indication as to the quality of the source in question, but having seen the referenced publications on the article, I had no doubt that he was a genuine scholar with substantial research under his belt -- but that doesn't always automatically qualify an academic for notability. I appreciate your argument for taking into account the available media with regard to different types of person, but every BLP needs at least one secondary and independent source. Anyway, the article is a little bit fuller for the discussion, and that's almost always the best possible outcome. :) Snow talk 17:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)