Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Popovič

: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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

=[[Anton Popovič]]=

:{{la|Anton Popovič}} ([{{fullurl:Anton Popovič|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Popovič}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Delete: fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BIO. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. GS gives h index = 5, top cites 41,21, rest in single figures. It hardly seems enough, but I am not familiar with the field of linguistics. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC).
  • Keep. I've found what look to be several reliable secondary sources about him and have added them to the article. A conference in his honor ten years after his death suggests he probably passes WP:PROF #1, and he's described nontrivially in two encyclopedias and a scholarly memorial article so I think he may well pass WP:BIO directly. Re Xxanthippe's searches: Google scholar is probably not the right place to look for mid-20th-century central European literary criticism. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. At the risk of being inaccurately accused of invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I would say that this article subject is as notable as the latest folk-death-metal-trip-hop-lounge band that has had a couple of reviews at http://www.folk-death-metal-trip-hop-lounge.com and Midsville News. Let's keep focused on deleting the unencyclopedic subjects rather than having a dumbed-down Google-mirror encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep on its own merits, the standards for each subject area can well be different. This meets the established WP:PROF criteria. DGG (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

::I would just respectfully like to point out to my fellow editors that it seems to me that keeping unsourced, somewhat incoherent, WP:OR-driven pages as this one was at the time the AFD was initiated and making no effort to improve them for years is a good way to create worthless mirror sites that clutter up the 'Net. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

:::You are absolutely right that the status at the time was questionable--but you could have dealt with it by following WP:BEFORE--which is not a requirement, but ought to be. This AfD shows why. DGG (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. All things considered. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC).
  • Keep. In addition to the evidence above, has at least one edited book/volume, The nature of translation: Essays on the theory and practice of literary translation, currently in more than 290 major libraries worldwide according to [http://www.worldcat.org WorldCat]. It all adds up to suggest that the subject meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed).--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2009 (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.