Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Wayan Arka

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) Vaticidalprophet 09:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I Wayan Arka

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I spent a good while umming and ahhing about this one, but in the end decided to move an AfD to see what more knowledgeable folks make of it. The article is highly promotional in nature, written by a SPA with possible COI issues. It does read quite impressively, but that said, much of the contents are completely unsupported so difficult to say what's true and what's not. There is a good deal of refs (to the point of bombing), but they mostly support this chap's publications, etc., and in any case all of it is primary sources and mostly quite close (and a search finds nothing better). Google Scholar gives h-index of 20, but I don't know how much that tells us, for or against. I'm contending WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC failure, but quite happy to be proven wrong. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While I think that the article has to be radically trimmed down to a few key points, maybe little more than a stub (the current page is overall a WP:PEACOCK embarassment for the subject), I believe that I Wayan Arka meets WP:NACADEMIC. He is virtually the only Indonesian linguist with an international standing in his field, and has done valuable research to improve our understanding about the languages of Indonesia, especially the Lesser Sunda Islands. He also has an important role in getting local and international research connected. This of course just my perspective from the same wider research area; I will try to find supporting secondary sources. –Austronesier (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you @Austronesier: precisely the sort of subject-matter-expert's views I was hoping for in this AfD. If you can find good secondary sources (I couldn't), that's great, but WP:PROF notability on academic grounds would also suffice. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, secondary sources would be great but even some perspective on citations in the field would be helpful, 1400 citations would be very little in biomedicine but if you are working on a niche language that seems like a lot to me. Also I found 4 book reviews [1] [2] [3] [4] which in general is sufficient for WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPROF together with a decent number of citations. --hroest 14:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier and DoubleGrazing: These critical feedback points are perfectly reasonable. I have loosely revised the article in a new section page based on my understanding of the feedback so far. Of course this is just suggestive, but in any case it's good practice for me in the event I create another Wiki academic profile in the future! I'd be happy to continue making more objective revisions if you guys think the current revision is heading in the right direction. Charbel.el-khaissi (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Charbel.el-khaissi: You can go ahead and implement your proposed new version as a first aid. Per WP:EDITATAFD, this is good practice and will help others to evaluate the key question of the subject's notability, cleared from other issues which DoubleGrazing and I have raised. –Austronesier (talk) 11:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep based on Austronesier and the book reviews from JSTOR which should make him pass NAUTHOR. --hroest 14:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier, DoubleGrazing, and Hannes Röst: Thanks all again for your collective feedback. I have made substantial revisions to the article. It has been trimmed down, the writing style is less promotional/puffery and more informative. Where possible, I have tried to remove unsupported information and reduced reference/hyperlink-bombing. I have refrained from highlighting the subject's notability to avoid potential bias, but it would be nice to include some of the points captured by @Austronesier: and @Hannes Röst: RE subject's notability above in this thread. Charbel.el-khaissi (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2021 (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.