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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shintani Tadahiko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A professor who doesn't pass WP:GNG, and doesn't come close to passing WP:SCHOLAR, highest cite count being 9. Had originally speedied, which was contested after some work was done on the article, but searches turned up virtually zero, although he has quite a few published works, but nothing seems to be in-depth about him. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that our colleagues at the Japanese Wikipedia have seen that he should have a page since 2009, suggests that in Japan he is regarded as notable. The fact that he has published on a number of languages for which there is no other, or almost no other, source, alone means that he has had a significant impact in his field. As for citation rates, it is clear that Google rather under counts these in Japanese and for sources not on line, so the count of 9 you cite should be taken cum grano salis. Tibetologist (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because the subject is a famous Japanese linguist with many published works. That there is an article on him on the Japanese Wikipedia, and that he is extensively referenced on the English Wikipedia are evidence of his notability. BabelStone (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Shintani is cited in at least thirteen English Wikipedia articles and is also cited in the Arabic, Indonesian, Portuguese, Russian, and even Ilocano Wikipedias. He is an authority on multiple languages in multiple language families, and wrote key publications on some of those languages. It makes little sense to have articles on those languages without an article on the man who introduced them to the scholarly world. Amritavira (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PROF. But I would still like to see better sources that are accessible in English. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Provisional keep. Subject's field is clearly under-cited in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. He is a notable linguist in his field, and his works are cited many times in English Wikipedia articles. Deleting the article just creates a bunch of redlinks on those articles -- where's the benefit of that? BabelStone (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the RS that shows this fellow is notable? The field being 'under-cited" doesn't justify an article. If he is a notable linguist, show the RS for that. I'd be happy to change to Keep. Without reliable coverage of him, the article fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added three more references to the article by reliable sources that mention Shintani's work. The article was in a very poor state when it was created, with no references or categories, so I am not at all surprised it was nominated for deletion, but I think there is now enough references to indicate that the subject is notable. BabelStone (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the article improvements. I believe that the article demonstrates subject's notability as an academic at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There needs to be sources that are about this fellow, not sources that mention him. If he is notable, it's not a passing mention. What they do on the Japanese Wiki does not necessarily translate here. There needs to be sources we can all access. I will check Google books, but until there are sources, this cannot be closed. He either has sources about him, or he doesn't. If not, then it has to be deleted. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the Japanese Wikipedia for this name and there is no article about this fellow under that name. It returns a red link here SW3 5DL (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SW3 5DL: Academics can be notable under WP:PROF instead of WP:GNG, in which case the requirement for significant coverage is a lot looser. The Japanese article is located at ja:新谷忠彦. – Joe (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: Thanks, I know about the rule on professors. Thanks for finding this. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I started the page so it is no surprise I am in favor of keeping it, my reasons, already on his talk page are points all touched on above. In particular, I find the argument that a number of languages are only known of through this man's work as means eo ipso that he is an notable as they are. Tibetologist (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - retired full professor in an important field, and based on improvement, per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Admittedly the case for a keep here is lacking in substance, but so is the argument for deletion. Google Scholar is not the be-all and end-all of WP:PROF#C1, it has many shortcomings, and clearly it's not working very well for a scholar who a) primarily publishes in Japanese and b) did most of his work pre-internet. Since I can't read Japanese there isn't a lot to go on either way, but on the basis of having a eight-year-old article on ja-wiki I'll err towards !voting keep. – Joe (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: I was thinking the same thing and only changed from delete to keep because of the prof thing. But not having reliable sources about him we can read, means we really can't verify his notability. And since he does have a wiki article, and there does not seem to be any real reference to him in English, I still think he should be deleted, even with the trend to keep. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- English-language sources are not a requirement within en.wiki. The content of the article is most definitely not a hoax, and I do see some sources that discuss the subject's work as a linguist: Lai Su Thai, as well as many citations: Gbooks preview. It's thus very likely that additional sources exist in Japanese. On the balance of things, I believe that the subject passes ACADEMIC and/or AUTHOR. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: I'm not saying they're a requirement. I'm saying we can't verify his notability. And there are no sources just about him. It's all mentions, nothing in depth. I will add, that his area of expertise does not lend itself to widespread coverage, even among academics, it's a very esoteric field. I couldn't find anything at Oxford, though I'm sure there's something in Bodleian. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For academics, we need sources about their work, which I believe are sufficiently present in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2017 (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.