Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grant Barrett

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. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 20:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grant_Barrett

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

The only credible sources of NYT has only one mention of his name and not an article. Fails to meet WP:BLP. Moreover being a auto-bio per WP:WWA it has relation with Wp:COI as well. Doublefrog (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although Nom asserts that "the only credible source" now on the page is the NYTimes, this is grossly insulting to the U-T San Diego, an old and respected daily that interviewed Barrett [1], not to mention dissing the credibility of the venerable American Dialect Society, of which lexicographical organization the page tells us that he is an officer. About that NYTimes article? It describes him as one of 5 youngish people who are "part of the next wave of top lexicographers who have already or may soon take over guardianship of the nation's language" as chiefs of America's top 5 dictionaries.[2] Not too shabby. Oh, and, Barrett is host of a blue-linked show on NPR called A Way with Words. I know this because it's right on the page. In blue. The question I'm really raising here is, have we decided that the appropriate response to meeting an article on a topic where notability is obvious - indicated by links already on the page - the proper response is to take it to AFD instead of, say, tagging it for in-line sourcing? End of rant. Seriously, folks, can we keep AFD for articles about marginal subjects?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted above, subject is clearly notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - Passes WP:GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close requested. Nom has been blocked indef as part of a sockpuppet investigation. All editors in good standing !voted keep. Anyone care to close this? Epeefleche (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2015 (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.