Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silvina Montrul


 * 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. Rough consensus indicates that the subject meets WP:PROF. Since WP:PROF is specifically created for this type of articles hence PROF prevails over GNG. (non-admin closure)  Jim Car ter  03:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Silvina Montrul

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:BIO: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." This person seems to full under that category. No significant coverage by reliable sources so fails WP:GNG. No awards; never been apart of a prestigious society; no deep or lasting impact that I can observe has been done by her to a large amount of people; therefore she doesn't meet WP:PROF. Can't see a reason to keep. Thanks, ceradon ( talk  •  contribs ) 08:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: doesn't seem to meet any of the points of WP:NACADEMICS. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:NACADEMICS #C8, "head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal". One of the two editors-in-chief of Second Language Research, a top-quarter ranking journal in the "Linguistics" and "Education & Educational Research" categories. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment perhaps, but the article fails the general notability guideline: little to no "significant coverage" by "reliable independent sources" (read: Even if a prospective editor wanted to expand the article in manor befitting encyclopedic articles, they couldn't. There just aren't enough reliable third-party articles to justify anything but a passing mention in the Second Language Research journal, perhaps. Food for thought.) --ceradon  ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment –  You seem to be misinterpreting the guidelines. WP:BIO says that many academics are notably influential without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources (emphasis mine). Most academics never have their biographies covered in the New York Times. But they are notable nevertheless because of their ideas. That's why we have the WP:NACADEMICS guidelines, which are unambiguous about this: "Academics/professors meeting meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." She meets #C8 so she is notable. As for the content of the article, she has had two books published by the Cambridge University Press. Together they have been cited almost 600 times. Someone who wants to expand the article can start by examining what other scholars have said about her work. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * She has been cited many times. This I see. But a Google search reveals that there just aren't many reliable sources that have covered her significantly. WP:GNG states that to be notable you must have significant coverage (read: more than a passing mention) by reliable, independent sources. She was mentioned once here in a news article, but little places else. Yes she's has written a myriad of scholarly articles, but she herself isn't covered significantly. She may be notable under WP:PROF and cited 600 times, but the question is whether this warrants a full article. As you say, she is the chief editor of a peer reviewed journal, perhaps her article could be redirected to that article, since she is only notable within the confines of one criterion of WP:PROF and there are no sources that cover her significantly. Thanks, --ceradon ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep per WP:PROF as well as C8. ceradon: according to her Google scholar profile there are some 3688 reliably scholarly publications that discuss the subject's work. The vast majority of these are independent of the subject, and presumably a smaller (but nonzero) fraction of them cover her work nontrivially. It is appropriate to consider these as sources in light of GNG, just as one would consider a newspaper story about an athletic accomplishment to be a source for a story about an athlete and a concert review that mentions a soloist to be a source about that musician. In this view, WP:PROF is a much much stronger criterion than WP:GNG, and one that the subject clearly passes. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * PS I added ten reliably published book reviews to the article. Based on these, the subject also passes WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 09:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - University scholar, huge number of citations to her works, etc. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2015 (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.