Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Müller (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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Müller (linguist)[edit]

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

All of the sources are primary. Can find sources in Google news search about the person. Mar11 (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see, as an academic, why you prefer secondary over primary sources? That seems crazy.... Is this the only thing you have against the article? It is very similar to many others on academics. Why go for delete when you can ask to have more secondary sources added?? (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added secondary sources.Meiriongwril (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mar11, I didn't understand the latter part of your rationale for deletion. If you can find sources in google news then bring them here, why are you opting for deletion discussion? I came across this article while reviewing new pages, I didn't take any action then because I was able to find 1156 citations in Google Scholars Hitro talk 18:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. May just pass WP:Prof#C1 with a GS h-index of 14 and WP:Prof#C5. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep. Google News hits are irrelevant, there is a subject-specific notability guideline for academics which in this case I think the subject clearly passes. She has held a named professorship (WP:PROF#C5), high citations for linguistics (#C1) and edits a major journal (#C8). There is an independent secondary source cited in the article ([1]) and we generally accept that academic biographies have to rely more on primary sources than usual. Joe Roe (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep please as the named chair is by far enough, any current concerns are not relevant enough for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 16 December 2016 (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.