Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John D. Smith
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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, defaulting to keep. Wizardman 17:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- John D. Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Unsourced BLP Will (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep qualifies as an academic. [1], [2], [3], [4]. JJL (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- deletet Is/was Lecturer in Sanskrit at Cambridge University but googling about, I really don't see much evidence of notable impact, a book published by CUP, and a few articles, but nothing clearly over the WP:PROF bar IMHO. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, seems to be cited often enough to pass muster at WP:PROF. Given the rather specialised nature of his field, it's not reasonable to expect a truckload of references. Lankiveil (talk) 12:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete his field seems relatively unspecialized to me; he's working on a popular epic and is a lecturer in one of the world's most popular ancient languages. (Latin, Ancient Greek and Sanskrit, in some order, would be my guess.) I just don't see that he reaches the notability bar.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Western academic work on ancient Sanskrit literature is an extremely small field, and practically the classic influence of specialization. One major book by a press like CUP is enough here. DGG (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.