Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Croft (linguist)

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 (WP:NACD) CTJF83 chat 19:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Croft (linguist)

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

Non-notable BLP of a linguist. The only independent source isn't even about HIM, it's about Greenberg, and only mentions Croft as it relates to Greenberg. That doesn't satisfy the "non-trivial" aspect of our notability policy. The other source is simply a university profile. Unit Anode 14:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be a leader in his field. He has published numerous books and papers and seems to be often cited[1][2] He publishes in what appear to be the most respected journals of the field (e.g. http://www.reference-global.com/doi/abs/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.2.151). At least one textbook (http://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Linguistics-Cambridge-Textbooks/dp/0521667704) among his several is in wide use and are often cited. He is "well known".[3] Another textbook here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Radical-Construction-Grammar-Typological-Perspective/dp/0198299540/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264961610&sr=1-3 Quoted often in mass media as a linguistic expert[4] (see note 14 to WP:PROF). - Wikidemon (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If someone's willing to source these claims and include them in the article, I'll withdraw the nomination right away. Unit Anode 18:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are granting that the person is notable? - Wikidemon (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Until reliable, secondary sources are found to source the claims, I don't grant that he's notable. Unit Anode 13:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very strong Google scholar citation counts: 1344, 785, 727+332, 714, 612, etc. Which is to say, just among the citations to his top five publications there are some 4500 reliable sources about his research. A clear pass of WP:PROF #1. Nominator is an unapologetic repeat violator of WP:BEFORE. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination - If you're going to send something to AFD and cause many users to spend time on an article, an elementary respect for a collaborative environment demands that you do at least a cursory search for sourcing. Ray^Talk 00:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "speedy keep" until these claims are sourced. Once they are, with reliable, secondary sources, I'll withdraw the nomination myself. Before you accuse someone of being "disruptive", think two or three times. Demanding that articles on living people be sourced or deleted is not "disruptive." Unit Anode 00:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. 4500 verifiable independent reliable sources attest notability. This AfD nomination is incompetently researched and timewasting. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The only thing "incompetent" here is that people bitching aren't sourcing. Unit Anode 03:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But there are hundreds of articles on professors with pitifully low citation counts you could be nominating. Heck, you could just Google search by "biography of a living person" "notability guideline for academics" site:en.wikipedia.org and find dozens of articles already tagged for being both unsourced and on possibly non-notable professors. Abductive (reasoning) 11:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is clear that he satisfies WP:PROF on the basis of citations alone. This is enough to satisfy WP:N, to presume notability, even if substantial sources about him are absent - i.e. if he does not satisfy the GNG. In such a case (not saying this is one) what we can say is limited, but not vacuous: in addition to things from his university, we can at least include a bibliography, which does not need to be externally sourced, as it sources itself.John Z (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per RayAYang. LotLE×talk 23:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
clear and unequivcal keep A very influential an esteemed linguist. Frivolous nomination.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:32, 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.