Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghil'ad Zuckermann

Ghil'ad Zuckermann

Subject does not appear to meet the requirements of notability for academics. Crieff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crieff (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questions Crieff, I have a few questions about this AfD. To start with, I think this is the first time that I see that the very first edit that someone makes is proposing an article for AfD. Doing so is not that easy for a newbie. Care to comment on that? Further, the article contains quite a few claims to notability. Before I start checking the mentioned sources myself, would you perhaps comment on why you think these sources are not adequate and exactly why this subject does not meet WP:PROF? Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of your first question? That is, how is it relevant to the question of whether the subject of this biography meets the notability requirement? But to answer it anyway: I have often edited wikipedia pages, without ever bothering to create a user name. But to propose a page for deletion discussion requires a user name, so I signed up. I agree the process is a bit complicated, but as an academic myself I think it is important that wikipedia not be used inappropriately by academics.

About notability: I don't see much that supports notability. To be sure, there are various academic distinctions, but those don't seem to me to come close to meeting the standards for notability. There is a new citation reporting that some other academic agrees with Zuckermann on one of Zuckermann's points, but again, I don't see how that confers notability. Moreover, google scholar doesn't show Zuckermann as having many citations, and most of the citations he does have are self-references. He is no doubt a solid academic with a promising research program, but that doesn't warrant a wikipedia entry (least of all one that goes into detail of his theories, as if they were well-known or controversial, and into the minutiae of his non-academic life). -- User:Crieff