Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Silverman


 * 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 no consensus. Consensus is either to keep the article as is, or redirect. Neither action requires deletion and can be done by any editor. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Daniel Silverman

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Single work cited and that a 'critical introduction' rather than ground breaking research that "has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" - those sources missing from this article and, indeed, search (who knew there were that many Daniel Silvermans in academia?). Also fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Leaning keep. Looks like WP:AUTHOR is most relevant. There are two blue-linked books, each of which cites three reviews. The Cambridge University Press book is also likely to have been reviewed. The 1997 book Phasing and Recoverability has 283 citations, which suggests there might be (offline) reviews for that one too, ETA: and indeed one is already referenced in the article. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, the two books are volumes of a series with joint reviews. There is also a review for Phasing and Recoverability in the article from "The LINGUIST List", but that's probably not reliable. Don't object to redirection, merging the two book articles; it's wasteful to have three articles on this topic. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought it was just the second edition of the book, slightly retitled? At least, that's what I thought the "(2nd Edition)" in the article meant. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect to the article on the (single) book. I can't find reviews for the other ones, and I would want to see reviews of multiple books for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability (academics), criteria 1 and 4. For example, you can see the citations for Phasing and Recoverability. It provides a hypothesis based on which different scholars work on other topics (see here). As to the WP:AUTHOR: Although published in Linguist list, this review by Kimary Shahin (Birzeit University/University of British Columbia) and this review by Stefan Frisch (University of Michigan) are both reliable (edited by Andrew Carnie). The textbook (in 3rd edition) is an evidence for criterion 4. Library holdings should also be considered regarding notability. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect Notability is largely dependent on a single book. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect as the article is a stub at can't be saved in its initial form. --Bigneeerman (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2022 (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.