Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robbins Burling

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, as there has been no challenge to the indications of notability presented. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robbins Burling

doubt it passes WP:PROF. Inquired via a prod which was removed without explanation. Also looks like WP:VAIN/WP:AUTO. ccwaters 19:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Your average professor, basically, but that's not quite good enough under WP:PROF. His CV, from which this was mostly taken (Google search the text), has just more of the same. Sandstein 21:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry; I'm a newbie at this. The article previously existed, but with his name mis-spelled. Since I was dumb, I didn't discover 'move', and did the incorrect cut/paste and then edited the original down to a re-direct. Honestly, if you feel the article doesn't belong, feel free to delete it, but I guess I don't understand why the same content (modulo the mis-spelled name) was acceptable before, but isn't now. (his kid) Srburling 22:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• More... Is the appropriate thing to do with this to move it into a different namespace? Again, I'm new here, so don't really know the rules. Srburling 22:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. The problem is that we, on Wikipedia, generally expect the people we have articles on to be notable, i.e. they must be in some sense important or interesting enough that others would want to read an encyclopedia article about them. For academics, the rules most of us use are at WP:PROF. If you think your father meets any of these criteria, you should update the article to reflect it, and provide a external source for it. The fact that no-one had gotten around to delete the original article doesn't mean it was acceptable - we unfortunately have many more inappropriate articles than we can keep up with. Another namespace isn't the solution either, because encyclopedic content belongs in the Wikipedia namespace, if at all - unless your father were to become a Wikipedia editor. Then one could put this content on his user page.

• You know, I simply don't care that much, and doubt very much that my father does, either. I was simply attempting to correct an error in the spelling of his name. My father is well-known in the linguistics field. (Heck, I'm well known to most linguists, since my early language acquisition was the subject of one of his early papers that virtually all linguistics students read.) From my reading of the section on WP:PROF, the fact that he's published a significant number of books in his particular area of expertise should be enough, but I guess I'm not understanding. So delete at your pleasure. Srburling 16:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• keep actually in linguistics and anthropology he seems to be well cited, and he's written extensively. I think he passes wp:prof with ease. --Buridan 17:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and add references. Seems to be a published, reviewed author. Popular Science Review. ADE Review. 12,000 Google hits (which may not be much for a rock star, but for an anthropologist is quite a bit). Sburling, if you can add references to the book reviews, and ISBNs to the books, the article will look better, and there won't be as many notability worries. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Added a couple of ISBNs and copied the link to the review from the note above. Srburling 23:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

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.