Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phasing and Recoverability

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phasing and Recoverability[edit]

[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)

No reliable secondary independent articles about the book. The two reviews in the article are on user-generated sites so do not meet the reliability standard. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although published in Linguist list, this review by Kimary Shahin (Birzeit University/University of British Columbia) and this review by Stefan Frisch (University of Michigan) are both reliable (edited by Andrew Carnie). The book has 285 citations on Google Scholar. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:UGC for a discussion of user-generated sites. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

rsjaffe As I said the reviews are different as the reliability of the text and the author and the editor is evident. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the crux of the matter. I'd like to see others weigh in on this. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:EXPERTSPS, self-published sources like the two Linguist List reviews may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. That criterion is clearly met here: see work by Kimary Shahin and Stefan A Frisch respectively. (It doesn't make a difference, but I can't work out quite whether the reviews actually are WP:SPSes at all: if our article on the subject is right that anyone and everyone can submit posts to the list, why do both sources have the header naming an "Editor for this issue"?) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per above, the two reviews are from subject-matter experts, and are therefore reliable despite being self-published. Additionally, both authors are used in multiple other phonetics related Wikipedia articles as sources. ––FormalDude talk 08:05, 21 June 2022 (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.