Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Kaufmann

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 delete. I see a rough consensus to delete. Some of the keep comments appeared to rely on arguments that have been generally accepted as unpersuasive, and I weighed those accordingly. In general, the subject seems to be on the cusp of notability, but not there yet. If asked, I will be happy to place a copy of this article in user space so it can be improved. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Put it in user space then. Another article or two and this'll be good to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent Pace (talk • contribs) 01:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Kaufmann

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

Although impressive number of languages known, their are no GNEWS beyond press releases and GHits consist mainly of blogs and book references. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wrong. Here's Google News on Steve Kaufmann: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22steve+kaufmann%22+language&cf=all. About 2/3 of the relevant articles are valid Canadian press coverage. Passes WP:BIO. Moreover, why is Google News the arbiter of notoriety. Google News doesn't get everything: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/bcradio/2009/03/05/BC-Radio-Live. What's more, if I start listing out language-learning blogs on which he's featured or discussed, the list will get really long. Should I? "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]

If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Steve's got extensive blog coverage backed up by media coverage, backed up by primary sources, so that seems to be pretty easily met. In addition, under the "Any Bio" guidelines, Steve has won significant awards in language blogging (indeed, the significant award in language blogging) and his views on language learning have had an enduring affect on the field. Vincent Pace (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I looked at the same “news” articles before I nominated the article for AfD. Here is what I found:

Items 1,2 and, 3 — are press releases and are not really independent sources.

Items 4,5, and 6 — are the same article and Kaufmann is only briefly quoted in the article.

Item 7 — is not available.

Item 8 — is only a mention of where he will be speaking.

Item 9 — is not about the subject, but rather talks about basketball players.

Item 10 — Is not about the right Kaufmann.

A couple of additional comments, Google News is only one indicator of Notability, there are many factors that can be involved; and third party blogs are not considered to be reliable support for BLP. My best to you... ttonyb1 (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The best source seems to be the Windsor Star article, and it seems to be a noncritical feature based upon a PR interview. [1] Though a significant regional paper, I am reluctant to consider such accounts reliable for notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. Subject does not seem to meet "the professor test", and the preponderance of primary sources on the page and passing references noted above suggest that he doesn't meet the notability guidelines for people. Neither of his blogs, The Linguist on Language or LingQ, appear to meet the notability guide for websites, either. I can't find a review of his book, and neither can Google Books. Cnilep (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Amazon is probably just as reliable or unreliable as Wikipedia, but I found three reviews Plumflower (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC) — Plumflower (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Keep~~ – There is some coverage - see Google. Please Google around instead of blatantly deleting the entry. Plumflower (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC) — Plumflower (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Doesn't this bio also make it as an author? WP:Author He's certainly widely cited by his peers, and there are strong argument in other factors as well. In addition, more press coverage is available here: http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20080705a1.html, http://www.japantoday.com/category/executive-impact/view/youre-never-too-old-to-learn-a-new-language, http://media.thelinguist.com/media/2008/03/19_radio1.mp3 (interview with Radio Canada in French), http://media.thelinguist.com/media/2008/EnglishLingQ/208_cest_lavie.mp3 (interview with Radio Canada in English) (haven't tracked down these yet on Radio Canada) Vincent Pace (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've not actually seen any citations of his work by his peers, and the two links to thelinguist.com are not independent of the subject. But, the pieces in the Japan Times and Japan Today contribute to borderline WP:GNG notability. Two pieces is not quite enough for me to call significant, but more similar pieces might win me over. (Looking again, the Japan Today piece reads more like a press release than reliable news coverage. The Japan Times piece is better, though it is a feature.) Cnilep (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2009 (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.