Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Eggins


 * 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.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Suzanne Eggins

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of wp:notability under either GNG or academic. None of the references even comes close to being suitable coverage. There is also some concern that the creator is obviously wiki-experienced (and managed to construct a full article with no secondary sourcing) but has only a 2 day editing history under that username. Most of the article is an unsourced presentation of her work. The only sourcing is to her works themselves, and essentially external links that do not relate to her. North8000 (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Delete unfortunately . Certainly as it stands the article easily fails BLP and IRS.  It would appear that the publication An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics is probably notable, being reviewed positively, in several IRS professional publications, and being sold by everyone, and held in major libraries, and as far as I can tell very widely cited, but notability is not inherited, so the book by itself is not sufficient.  It is odd that such a "first effort" article is so well "wikified" yet is so inappropraitely sourced?  It seems the subject does have some standing in the linguistics community, but I cannot find any IRS about the subject to support notability. If someone can find some IRS about the subject I would be happy to change my !vote. Aoziwe (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Higly expert editor creates a whole Wikified article despite no having suitable sources, near-completed on the first day of editing under this user name. "Odd" for normal editing, but quite the norm for paid editing. North8000 (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing my !vote to keep - now multiple works with high levels of citation, and solid references to the subject's work generally, as per further references below. Aoziwe (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per WP:NPROF. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics seems to be a well regarded and widely used textbook which would satisfy criterion 4 of NPROF. The article isn't great, so it may be worth WP:TNTing, but I lean towards notable. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment If her main claim to fame is writing the book, the article should be moved to the book title and rewritten to focus on the book. buidhe 22:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. In addition to discussion of her book and review of her work in scholarly lit reviews, I find discussion of Eggins qua scholar in e.g. Martin 1999, Martin 2014, Treimane 2011. Definitely seems to satisfy NPROF 1 and 4. (By the way, as regards possible paid editing or sock-puppetry, it seems equally likely that e.g. students in linguistics courses not registered with WikiMedia could have been coached as part of course work etc. to produce work up to Wikipedia standards. I have also heard of various "Wiki-thons" wherein experienced Wikipedians train interested novices.) Cnilep (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep There are abundant indicators of notability. Her Introduction to systemic functional linguistics has been cited 5431 times, and is held by 370 WorldCat libraries. Analysing casual conversation has been cited 2552 times, and is held by 300 WorldCat libraries. Reviews of them in scholarly journals include: . Citation counts of her journal articles are similarly impressive for linguistics. Plainly meets criterion #1 of WP:PROF. Deficiencies in the current sourcing can be fixed by editing. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.