Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Dryer


 * 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) Erik9 (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Dryer

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was originally called Frequency and pragmatically unmarked word order and under that title I prodded it, as it was an article about a single paper that Matthew Dryer published, and I don't think individual papers are usually notable enough for encyclopedia articles. Even if a few are, this one isn't. The "solution" was to move the article to Matthew Dryer, under the claim that he is "a notable author". However, if he is, the article certainly doesn't show it, as the content of the article hasn't been significantly changed. The article is therefore now a mere coatrack, apparently being about a person but in fact still just being about one paper. —Angr 07:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC) *Delete, nothing here showing that Mr. Dryer is notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Keep, thanks to Eric for his work on the article. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep/stubbify. The article is crap, but Mr Dryer would seem to meet WP:PROF: full professor at major research university, major awards as seen here (NSF, Humboldt), lots of published work with lots of citations, etc.  It was correct to prod the article about the paper, but before AfD on the author it would have been wise to check a bit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In its current state, the article isn't about the author anyway, it's about one paper he wrote. If the entire content is deleted and replaced with a sourced article that actually asserts his notability, I'll be glad to withdraw the nomination. But in its current state, the article should not be kept here. —Angr 19:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with Nomoskedasticity. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Citation impact indicates notability (this is slightly different from the one obtained by Nomoskedasticity, but essentially the same conclusion). Article definitely needs rewriting, and should indeed be reduced to a stub for future growth.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you volunteering to actually do so? Or is this going to be another case of a bunch of "Keep but clean up" votes resulting in the article being kept but not cleaned up? —Angr 06:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Already done.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and edit. The article does not even mention such good evidence for notability, as being a co-editor of the World Atlas of Language Structures, Oxford University Press August 2005.  The present material is not irrelevant, it just has to be reduced. DGG (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See my question to Eric Yurken above. —Angr 06:59, 11 March 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.