Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew West (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 no consensus. Given the comments by the subject at the bottom of the discussion, I don't think this can be closed any other way. Black Kite (talk) 11:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew West (linguist)[edit]

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

Page does not clearly demonstrate notability. – Fayenatic London 15:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography § Proposed deletion of Andrew West (linguist)

– – Fayenatic London 15:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The self-declared account of the subject of this article has said on several occasions that he would like this article deleted. Most recently:

I would be even happier if the article disappeared but I cannot take it to AfD myself, and no-one else seems willing to do so. BabelStone (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2015

The article has attracted conflict, including Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Andrew_West_.28linguist.29. Although West may or may not be a notable academic on account of a significant contribution to his field, I believe that because he is a low profile individual, it would be prudent and polite to honor this request. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honor the article subject here (that is, delete) I think notability would be more than sufficient if an editor did a diligent search for sources, but if the article subject is not seeking to have an article here, and notability is the tiniest bit in doubt, then there is no harm in deleting, especially if deleting avoids edit wars. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, guys, there doesn't seem to be notable controversy about the actual CONTENT of the article, like the subject editing to remove controversial material, or whatever. This guy doesn't really meet notability in my opinion, so why not delete it? It's not providing a ton of substance to the wikipedia, and there isn't a ton of content that anyone NEEDS to see. In a journalistic or referential sense. --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 05:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is difficult because the category of minor intellectuals, people well-known enough to merit pages, but not well-known enough to have hordes of Wikipedia defenders is large. Many, many intellectuals have rivals with grudges, or ideological opponents, who attack their Wikipedia pages. It's a problem. If every minor-but-notable intellectual is allowed to ask that his page be deleted, Wikipedia becomes less valuable as a resource. Is there a policy on this? Can anyone just ask to be deleted?E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, which includes: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." 1bandsaw (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep probably over the borderline for notability. The way I personally understand it, the option for accepting a request for deletion by the subject of an article only applies if the discussion is otherwise undecided, and then only as an option. The proper time to use it is when the article would necessarily cause undue harm to the subject. Otherwise such requests inevitably lead to our having articles on relatively minor figures only if they like what is being said-- and that's nearer to Who's Who in America than I think we should be going. (That is not the reason here, this aritcule does no harm to the subject in any manner.(It might be, rather. an on-wiki conflict between individuals, and that above all things should not affect what subjects we cover. ) DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We delete articles on people who request it, unless they are so clearly notable that deleting the article would undermine the credibility of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. While Andrew West is a modest man, his scholarly work is important and notable (even if within a highly-specialized field of linguistics and history), and merits a Wikipedia article. -- Evertype·✆ 11:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could we instead have article(s) about West's scholarly work, while omitting his bio? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point. There's a biography of him on the Chinese Wikipedia. His chief area of study, Tangutology is highly specialized, as indeed are his other interests. Access to information about scholars interested in specialized areas of study is not easy to get, and Andrew is one of the scholars listed in Category:Tangutologists. It would make no sense to delete his bio from the Wikipedia when he stands with the others. The results of Andrew's and other Tangutologists' work can be found in numerous articles here (all edited in part by Andrew). -- Evertype·✆ 14:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may apply here per that guideline. It also may not. I have written to my friend Andrew to ask what he really wants. -- Evertype·✆ 21:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did not intend to get involved in this discussion, but since Evertype excplicitly asked me it would be discourteous to him not to say anything. I am conflicted over this AfD: on the one hand, the article on me has caused me some trouble on-wiki and some embarrassment in real life, so I would be happy to see it deleted if it does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria; but on the other hand, as a Wikipedian I strongly disagree that subjects of Wikipedia articles should have a veto over the contents or existence of Wikipedia articles. Until this AfD I was not aware of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, and if I was I would perhaps have been somewhat more circumspect over what I said in the heat of a COIN discussion. I would really much rather this discussion focus on the notability of the subject of the article (Andrew West) rather than try to interpret the words of me as a Wikipedian. BabelStone (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response I'm grateful to Andrew for weighing in here. At the end of the day, Tangutologists are notable and Andrew is notable as one of them. If this article is deleted, eventually someone will write another one. Keep please, and let's move on. -- Evertype·✆ 12:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if we look at the "votes" on this page (and I know, it's not a vote), we have 3 for Keep based on notability (even if two are weak, perhaps based on the obscurity of Tangutology), we have 4 for Delete, 3 of which are based only on BLPREQUESTDELETE, which Andrew has just said oughtn't apply. So I'd say it's 3 to 1 for Keep. :-) -- Evertype·✆ 12:49, 29 April 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.