Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John J. Gumperz

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The result of the debate was Speedy Keep - Nomination withdrawn by nominator and no remaining delete votes.. Rob 00:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Gumperz[edit]

Delete as NN-bio. {{prod}} contested by Monicasdude. No assertion of notability in article/redlink farm. Nomination Withdrawn per Sliggy and references to WP:PROFTEST. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 19:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, vandalous/bad faith nomination, as well as a violation of WP:BITE. Subject of article is extraordinarily notable: the Britannica authority in his field, a BBC consultant, a regularly published author, a noted academic, etc, etc, etc. [1][2] Original article was posted by a new user a short time before the nominator prodded it without doing a shred of checking, even the the article properly asserted notability and gave no indication it was unreliable. After I removed the prod, commenting on the fact that the nominator had made no effort to verify his absurd claim of non-notability, he posted a rude personal attack on my talk page. And the article rather prominently asserts notability, saying the subject's work has "benefitted" several academic disciplines and created a new area of research/work in sociolinguistics. Notability can (and usually should) be asserted without peacock or terms or conclusory phrasing. This nomination is an expression of spite. Can we close this already? Monicasdude 19:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Vandalous/bad faith nomination"...no. Violation of WP:BITE...I think we can look at the history of RfCs against Monicasdude to get a feel for that. As for the AfD nomination...the article, as written at the time of nomination, provides no evidence of notability. It is the responsibility of the article's author to provide such. Therefore, it is not an expression of spite or vandalism. If someone wishes to rewrite the article in such a way as to make it worthy of inclusion, I have no problem retracting the nomination. As for the rude personal attack...I'll recommend that here in the open...when you place a comment like "...would it kill you to google the name?", I feel that a reference to WP:DICK is perfectly appropriate. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 20:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response. You still haven't explained why you still want to delete an article about an obviously notable subject, other than your extreme pique. If the current text bothers you that much, fix it. You seem to be on a spree of attempting to delete articles on subjects that plainly meet notability and verifiability criteria, because you're annoyed at the authors. Get over it. Monicasdude 20:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have added a link to Gumperz's list of publications to the article, to provide verifiable evidence. Sliggy 20:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per WP:PROFTEST. I'm not altogether sure that the nomination was made in good faith, but I certainly don't approve of Monicasdude's imputation of malign motive to Bug (and I agree certainly with him that the creator of an article should make every effort to demonstrate the subject's notability straightaway). Similarly, I don't think Monicasdude's "would it kill you" comment is wholly gauche or untoward and surely doesn't merit a reference to WP:DICK. Essentially, I think this debate should be conducted without reference to the article's creator or nominator for deletion. Finally, though, I must strenuously object to Monica's continued ascription of the term "vandalism" to nominations for deletion, for reasons I explain here (this is the second AfD about the proper disposition of which we've concurred but about which I've had to write separately to distinguish my beliefs from hers, and I wonder if perhaps she oughtn't to rethink how she articulates some of her positions here). Joe 20:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to meet the (proposed) WP:PROFTEST based on publication list alone. Based on this discussion and previous experience, though, I can second the recommendation to occasionally peruse WP:CIVIL, at least. Sandstein 20:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Prominent academics keep ending up on AfD lately. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 20:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in spite of the red links. Gumperz is a Professor Emeritus at Berkeley, and passes the professor test. I suspect that if he were a fictional professor in Star Trek, he'd be kept without question. Is there a systemic bias against reality? Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 22:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep widely cited professor. And Brian's right: let's combat the systemic bias against real subjects. Just zis Guy you know? 23:09, 22 March 2006 (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.