Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Krashen

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. John254 00:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Krashen

Stephen Krashen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The article lacks sufficient sources to argue notability for the person. (Please recall that a high number of published documents and search engine hits do not constitute notability.) After a brief review of a biography posted to Wikipedia, which was removed due to copyright reasons, it does not appear that this person has significantly contributed to this field. However, this is my view of it, others may differ. If there are additional sources, not by the subject himself, that provide evidence of notability, perhaps this article is worthwhile. As it stands, there is not enough information. Additionally, the article has been online for some time without any new (legal) information added to the page. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 23:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• The picture on the article should be deleted as well, since it has no copyright information. I've listed it for deletion, but I'm not sure why it hasn't been. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 23:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD A7. jonathan (talk — contribs) 23:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• A7 is for articles that make no attempt to claim importance/significance; "professor emeritus" is certainly such a claim, so this isn't a speedy candidate. Thomjakobsen 00:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep According to Amazon [1], "The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom" has been cited 96 times in other books; another has been cited 86 times, another 25 times. This is notable. JJL 03:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 03:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep per this. His books on the first page alone are cited by over 3000.--Sethacus 04:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Citing policies, page hits, or even the number of references is irrelevant to notability. READ THE GUIDELINE! Please, do not cite a search engine or another policy for your argument. It doesn't help! — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 05:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I suggest YOU read the guideline, and stop trying to bully others when you're losing an argument. FROM THE GUIDELINE (the REAL one[2], which I doubt you bothered to read): "The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known" and "The person has published a significant and well-known academic work... if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature". The first hit in the link I provided is a book review which states, in fact, that his work is significant in this field. The 3000+ cites back up this claim. This is not a fly-by-night prof looking to get famous. This is a professor emeritus at a notable institution with several books to his credit, one of which has been cited by over 1000. Many of his articles alone are cited by close to 100 apiece. This man's work is significant and thoroughly cited, therefore, he is notable. End of story.--Sethacus 06:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Seemed to meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics) already when I removed the PROD tag for a reasoning similar to Sethacus. Moreover, we actually have a page which describes one of his theories including third party sources, so a redirect would be the very least. --Tikiwont 07:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Along with the academic citations, there's plenty of popular press. Skip past the frat newsletter stuff on the first page and find an interview in NPR, a New York Times article calling him prominent, two paragraphs on his research in the Guardian, a letter with his name in the title in the Taipei Times, etc. —David Eppstein 17:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per David and Sethacus. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. If all this is true, then this article needs to be vastly improved. As it stands, it shows nothing of his notability. "Professor emeritus" does not equal notability. I know plenty of such professors, and they are not notable. Some of the other discoveries here may lead this article to notability status, but as it is, it just isn't. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 05:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• "Article needs improvement" is not a valid reason for deletion of a stub article. The discussion here is about whether the subject of the article meets notability criteria; the Google Scholar link provided above shows that he easily passes the guidelines at WP:PROF on number of citations alone. Thomjakobsen 19:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• The comment I provided was not an argument for deleting it. I came across the article and nominated the article for deletion based on its content. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 04:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep; notability clearly established in the AFD discussion, giving future editors sufficient resources to work with to improve the article. --lquilter 19:17, 11 October 2007 (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.