Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Young-Scholten (2nd nomination)
- 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. overall, the consensus was keep Nja247 10:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Martha Young-Scholten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
orphan article; subject no more notable than many other linguists; article copied from another wiki Coal-fired power station (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC) — Coal-fired power station (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Interesting: this AfD is the very first edit by this editor. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AOBF. Coal-fired power station (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, interesting, your appeal to non-applicable policy notwithstanding. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AOBF. Coal-fired power station (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Seems notable to me. An article being orphaned is not a cause for deletion (as far as I am aware). Article copied and attributed from CZ (the recent change over of licenses from both CZ and Wikipedia allows this cross over of articles). Name of the CZ lisence is in fact: Creative Commons-Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Hence nothing illegal about the porting and hence this is also not a reason for deletion. Finally a large amount of references/footnotes are present. I had a look at List_of_linguists and this particular individual doesn't seem less notable than the random sample of 5 individuals I picked out of that list. Also Question: Where is the first nomination of this AfD?Calaka (talk) 09:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Seems notable to me" is NOT a validation of notability. And yes, other linguist exist and their notability is irrelevant to this person's notability. This editor's opinion should not be considered as it is based on invalid arguments. Drawn Some (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it does seem notable to me. It is my opinion based on the reading I have done in assessing whether I think the article is notable or not. I had a look through the references and they do seem fine to me and the individual has published substantial amount of work that is cited by other individuals (if she published a lot of stuff and no one cited it then I would be hesitant to say it is notable). But never-the-less I stand by my initial "seems notable to me." If you do not like my opinion, then... too bad?Calaka (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That was because of the 'subst:prod' tag. Coal-fired power station (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it does seem notable to me. It is my opinion based on the reading I have done in assessing whether I think the article is notable or not. I had a look through the references and they do seem fine to me and the individual has published substantial amount of work that is cited by other individuals (if she published a lot of stuff and no one cited it then I would be hesitant to say it is notable). But never-the-less I stand by my initial "seems notable to me." If you do not like my opinion, then... too bad?Calaka (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Seems notable to me" is NOT a validation of notability. And yes, other linguist exist and their notability is irrelevant to this person's notability. This editor's opinion should not be considered as it is based on invalid arguments. Drawn Some (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No problem with the person's notability. Article could written to be more interesting to an average reader but that no reason to tag and AfD the article for that. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "No problem with the person's notability." does not establish notability. Opinion should be ignored. Drawn Some (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Reasonably highly cited in Google Scholar--not in Scopus or WoS, but their coverage for this subject area is very poor. But be aware that Citizendium does not have a notability policyDGG (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is "reasonably highly"? We can rely on Google Scholar when it supports our position then say it is unreliable when it doesn't? Ditto for Scopus or WoS? Let's just keep throwing notablity shit until some sticks? No, Google Scholar doesn't support notability in this instance, and this opinion should be ignored as well. Drawn Some (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, 994 is reasonably high. See here--anyone who knows the scholarly business knows that this is indeed reasonably high. Her 1996 book with Vainikka is cited 221 times--which makes me think that DGG's assessment is on the modest side. Drawn Some, please turn off attack mode. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is "reasonably highly"? We can rely on Google Scholar when it supports our position then say it is unreliable when it doesn't? Ditto for Scopus or WoS? Let's just keep throwing notablity shit until some sticks? No, Google Scholar doesn't support notability in this instance, and this opinion should be ignored as well. Drawn Some (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for all the reasons mentioned above. Plenty notable. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, no reason given here at all, except "Plenty notable." Totally a waste of our time forcing us to read this and expecting it to help us make a decision regarding notablity. See the essay on arguments to avoid in deletion discussion. This opinion should be ignored. Drawn Some (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You got some terrible manners. Are you on a crusade? Drmies (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, no reason given here at all, except "Plenty notable." Totally a waste of our time forcing us to read this and expecting it to help us make a decision regarding notablity. See the essay on arguments to avoid in deletion discussion. This opinion should be ignored. Drawn Some (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as fails both general notability guidelines at WP:NOTE and WP:PROF in particular. No, doesn't just fails, fails miserably. Obscure lecturer. Closing editor should not be swayed by hollow arguments given by those saying "keep" ultimately based on WP:ILIKEIT. We have notability and verifiability guidelines and articles need to satisfy them. Drawn Some (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to pass Point 1 of WP:PROF. Quoting from Point 1 (explained): "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work."Calaka (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The claim that she co-invented the "Minimal Trees Hypothesis" of Second Language Acquisition seems to be robust. Here is an example of what I would consider to be a third party source that directly addresses the topic of the Minimal Trees Hypothesis. There are more such sources. I would say that this may help Drawn Some feel better if this article is kept. I also find it very interesting that a new user:Coal-fired power station AfD'd this. Abductive (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)'[reply]
- Originally an IP user proposed the article for deletion: [1] saying that the article had no incoming links and was "probably non-notable". I (in good faith mind you) assumed that the individual thought that orphan articles should be deleted and removed the prod and added the orphan tag. I then wrote a note on their IP site recommending them to join Wikipedia. Subsequently the above user nominated the article for deletion going along similar points for the deletion ([2]). I am suspecting some sort of bias by the AfD. Perhaps there is a personal dislike for the linguist (colleagues, competitors?), she managed to get a paper published while the initial individual didn't or maybe his article got deleted on Wikipedia and thinks he is as notable as this individual or maybe the individual is the person from the article?Calaka (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AOBF. Coal-fired power station (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)'[reply]
- I am just giving the background to Abductive. What I said above is clearly not made up and any reasonable person would suspect a bias in your posts due to WP:SPA which was before you removed the single purpose account tag and claim your post is all about coal fired power stations. Are you originally from CZ? Did you make that article there and you are offended by the porting over to wiki? Without telling us anything we are not left with much to think about the motives.Calaka (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My interest was because starting an AfD was the first thing I did with this account, and I am known for nominating articles on professors for deletion. Abductive (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Calaka: why don't you tell everyone here exactly who you are as well? Actually I wanted to write about coal-fired power stations but saw first off that there was a lot of new articles appearing on Wikipedia that had been ripped straight off Citizendium, even though Wikipedia has different rules (like notability). Coal-fired power station (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect we are getting off topic so I will say this and no more: If you joined Wikipedia to contribute to coal fired power stations and so on, why was the first thing you did is nominate the above at AfD? Seems pretty advanced for someone that just came to Wikipedia for the first time (I wish I knew all the shortcuts to the various guidelines and policies of Wikipedia the first day I started editing things on Wikipedia)! Anyway, if you actually read what was said above and paid attention to other discussions happening around Wiki, both CZ, Wikipedia (and other wikis apparently) renewed their license allowing the porting of articles from one wiki to another as long as credit is given (hence the 'Edit Summary' indicating it was from CZ and the {citizendium} tag at the bottom of the article. Anyway: I wish you all the best with your contributions to Wikipedia. Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Calaka: why don't you tell everyone here exactly who you are as well? Actually I wanted to write about coal-fired power stations but saw first off that there was a lot of new articles appearing on Wikipedia that had been ripped straight off Citizendium, even though Wikipedia has different rules (like notability). Coal-fired power station (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My interest was because starting an AfD was the first thing I did with this account, and I am known for nominating articles on professors for deletion. Abductive (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am just giving the background to Abductive. What I said above is clearly not made up and any reasonable person would suspect a bias in your posts due to WP:SPA which was before you removed the single purpose account tag and claim your post is all about coal fired power stations. Are you originally from CZ? Did you make that article there and you are offended by the porting over to wiki? Without telling us anything we are not left with much to think about the motives.Calaka (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AOBF. Coal-fired power station (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)'[reply]
There is such a thing as lurking and reading help pages before rewriting other people's work. This page is covered with shortcuts like WP:PROF so it doesn't take a brain surgeon to find out how they work (but I admit that people who actually work out how Wikipedia is organized rather than just start editing are rare). Anyway, you are right about going off-topic into conspiracy theories. Coal-fired power station (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nominator provides no valid reason for deletion as the article is clearly not a copyright violation. Clearly meets WP:PROF as Google Scholar shows thier work is heavily cited. Edward321 (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on notability grounds, as it is a clear pass of WP:PROF; abstain on the copy-vio point and on any point of article content, as I haven't investigated. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on GS results and above. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment If this had been started on Wikipedia, it would have got deleted straightaway. And there are many other linguists equally deserving of pages about them if this one is notable. Coal-fired power station (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is stopping you create articles about linguists. By all means. Every Wikipedian would (well at least SHOULD) welcome the creation of articles about any topics granted they meet notability guidelines. If you want, make up a list of missing linguists at a separate sub page at WP:MISSING and I am sure there would be many that would go about creating them. Calaka (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2009 (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.