Haspelmath
|
Hello, Haspelmath
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Actualcpscm, and I thank you for your contributions.
I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Michael Daniel (linguist), for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.
If you wish to contest the deletion:
- Edit the page
- Remove the text that looks like this:
{{proposed deletion/dated...}} - Click the button.
If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Actualcpscm}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Actualcpscm (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Hi! I wanted to elaborate on this: For an individual to be an appropriate article topic, it needs to be demonstrated that they meet the notability guidelines. That can either mean the general guideline, or a subject-specific guideline; the only one that seems to apply here would be WP:NACADEMIC. This individual meets neither of these standards; the sources used in the article are for the most part not independent, nor are any of them significant/in-depth coverage of this individual, and I couldn't find any better ones. You're allowed to remove the PROD tag for any reason, but this article would likely be deleted after a discussion at WP:AFD, unless significantly better sources are found. If you have any questions or concerns about this (or anything else), feel free to reach out to me by replying here or on my talk page. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- I thought that Michael Daniel meets the following criterion: "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association." He was recently elected to the Academia Europaea (see https://www.ae-info.org/ae/Member/Daniel_Mikhail). Note that Wikipedia also contains articles on other linguists of comparable notability, e.g. Nina Dobrushina, also recently elected to the Academia Europaea. Haspelmath (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- The nature of this association, especially with regards to prestige, needs to be demonstrated through independent sources; the article on the Academia itself only backs up this claim with non-independent sources. I'm not sure that threshold is met here; is there a consensus about the Academia that was established elsewhere? Actualcpscm (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know, but there are many linguists on Wikipedia that are less notable than Michael Daniel, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_S._Kaye, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shobhana_Chelliah, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_E._Watters (these are completely random examples). It would seem strange to exclude Michael Daniel. Haspelmath (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- If you think those linguists don‘t meet the notability guidelines, it would be best to discuss that at those article’s talk pages (or at a relevant AfD discussion). I understand that basing your judgement on what already exists seems reasonable, but it‘s not really a good argument; see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you think this is deserving of larger discussion, you can remove the PROD tag and I‘ll put the article up for discussion through WP:AFD. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- OK, I removed the tag – please go ahead and put it up for discussion. I have had problems with notability before, when I wrote the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_for_Linguistic_Typology in January, but it was approved only in April. I didn't understand why. But I realize that Wikipedia needs to be critical, and it's often a matter of subtle judgment. Haspelmath (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- If you think those linguists don‘t meet the notability guidelines, it would be best to discuss that at those article’s talk pages (or at a relevant AfD discussion). I understand that basing your judgement on what already exists seems reasonable, but it‘s not really a good argument; see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you think this is deserving of larger discussion, you can remove the PROD tag and I‘ll put the article up for discussion through WP:AFD. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know, but there are many linguists on Wikipedia that are less notable than Michael Daniel, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_S._Kaye, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shobhana_Chelliah, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_E._Watters (these are completely random examples). It would seem strange to exclude Michael Daniel. Haspelmath (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- The nature of this association, especially with regards to prestige, needs to be demonstrated through independent sources; the article on the Academia itself only backs up this claim with non-independent sources. I'm not sure that threshold is met here; is there a consensus about the Academia that was established elsewhere? Actualcpscm (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- I thought that Michael Daniel meets the following criterion: "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association." He was recently elected to the Academia Europaea (see https://www.ae-info.org/ae/Member/Daniel_Mikhail). Note that Wikipedia also contains articles on other linguists of comparable notability, e.g. Nina Dobrushina, also recently elected to the Academia Europaea. Haspelmath (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)