Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Blench


 * 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. W.marsh 00:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Roger Blench


Subject of article seems non-notable. Possible conflict of interest? Marm (t) 11:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. What leads you to say there may be a COI? I'm not seeing it. As for the notability of the professor, he seems to have a rather large list of publications and books. About 600 google hits. I'm not entirely sure of how notable he is though. I'm going to stay neutral at this point in time. --Brad Beattie (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * One example of what makes me think this is possible COI is that the article states about some of his work "...This work finances much of his ethnolinguistic work and travel to conferences." - a fact both entirely irrelevant, and one that could not possibly be known by anyone not in close contact with Dr. Blench. Marm (t) 11:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * From the talk page, it seems that 81.132.98.146 is Roger Blench. Hut 8.5 12:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, well-known scholar in the field of African languages and linguistics (he also has done quite some work in other fields, including ethnography and archaeology, but I'm not able to assess his stature or notability in those fields). Certainly notable, if not for the Google hits then for his numerous publications in various forums (including peer reviewed journals and volumes edited with other scholars of good reputation). Also note that he didn't edit the article himself except for adding a (rather long) list of publications; the sentence cited by Marm wasn't added or edited by him but by an unrelated anon in this edit. I don't see evidence of a conflict of interest. &mdash; mark &#9998; 13:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that Dr. Blench has numerous publications, including in peer reviewed journals, and including those written with respected scholars. I do doubt that this is merit for inclusion in wikipedia. For instance, in the department where I study, this could be said about most professors. However, how many of them appear in wikipedia? one (Bill Unruh). Having numerous publications, including those in peer reviewed journals is something nearly everyone in academia can claim, and therefore, unless you believe we must list everyone in academia, is insufficient grounds for keeping. I would also call attention to the fact that User:Mark Dingemanse who made the above comment is, except for anons and a now-inactive user, the only editor of Roger Blench and has been accused of being Roger Blench on the article's talk page. Not that I believe that, but I think it accurately reflects whether or not above user can be counted on for being objective in this case. Marm (t) 23:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That is quite a remarkable argumentation in an AfD. First, if you want to suggest that I want to keep the article because I'm sympathetic to Blench in person or something, I think you should look at what edits I have made to the article (and read the talk page more closely). Second, do you really want to imply that the vote of 'regular' editors (hardly a fitting appelation in my case, but okay) of an article should have less weight in an AfD? I think you should assume good faith, and assume that such editors may actually know better why the subject of the article would be notable (or not) than a passerby who nominates it for AfD.
 * I do agree however that not every academic should be included in Wikipedia. My vote simply reflects my opinion that Blench is notable enough for this article to be kept now that it has been created (even though I wouldn't have created it myself). &mdash; mark &#9998; 15:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm confused: you don't think this article should have been created, yet you think it should be kept? That makes little sense to me.
 * I agree with your point in regards to frequent editors. I just felt you being the only named editor perhaps reflected your seeing something notable where no one else did. For an extreme example, see Kenneth Wajda (linked here so that it may perhaps catch an admin's eye and be erased more expediently!). Marm (t) 08:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it shouldn't have been created, I was just saying that I wouldn't have created it myself (in my editing I usually focus on languages, not on linguists); I said that just to make clear that I really don't have a stake in this (I'm not trying to save my valuable edits or something like that). And trust me, I'm more of a deletionist than an inclusionist, in my own field as much as in other fields. &mdash; mark &#9998; 09:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Follow the links to this page and you'll see that Blench is well-cited. If there is COI material in the page, then it should be edited. Delete is the wrong medicine for a notable subject. -- Shunpiker 23:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Editor of many books in his field. Noted scholar. Edison 00:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'm not against the article being kept. Moreover, Dr. Blench could very well be a notable linguist in the field of African languages. But in that case the article needs to be improved such that it lists what exactly is notable about the subject. Marm (t) 02:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment for biography of living people of uncertain notability, I recommend deletion for privacy purposes, unless the subject of the article actually consents to be included in wikipedia.  Not sure if the fact of 81.132.98.146 being the subject of the article is verified or not.  69.140.173.15 20:24, 25 November 2006 (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.