Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allan R. Bomhard (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Dane2007 (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Allan R. Bomhard
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No claim of notability. I was not able to find evidence of notability. He does not seem to have an academic appointment and his publications are in fringe areas of linguistics and most selfpublished. The three reviews supplied as sources are unfavorable (one calls his etymologies and revconstruction "bad en masse", the other calls them "highly personal") showing that his work has not have a major impact in the field, suggesting strongly that he fails WP:ACADEMIC and GNG. The fact that he is listed in one source as a specialist in nostratic is not itself very impressive given that Nostratic theory is not part of mainstream linguistics - and given that he has been unable to find employment or peer reviewed publication venues for most of his work. There are also no sources for any biographical information.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete His ideas are not supported by the scholarly community, thus failing point 1 for academics, the only one he comes anywhere near meeting, and he does not meet the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  16:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. He did succeed isn getting his work published by 2 major publishers in the field, Brill and deGruyter.  DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Since when is this enough to establish notability? Should we rewrite wp: academic and wp:gng? Maunus


 * keep Linguists argue about the darnedest things. That said, and I want to admit that I have not actually read through to the end of the reviews I  see as supporting keep - I read  them just far enough to see that his ideas (part of an arcane scholarly debate) are being seriously encountered, not merely dismissed as fringe, in reviews in sundry scholarly journals of several of his books (some for which he is a co-editor of a collection).E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as I concur with DGG, there are over 4,000 library holdings and they are major publishers. I would've kept this myself simply because of these 2 things. SwisterTwister   talk  17:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I may be mistaken but I don't think library holdings are ever mentioned in any of our policies on notability. Maunus


 * 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.