Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allan R. Bomhard

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 to delete. Angr (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allan R. Bomhard

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

I can't seem to find any reliable secondary sources on the subject. Every source on the subject seems to be either a social media site, or a mention of his books. I understand that the WP:PROD tag was pulled since he has authored and co-authored several books, but I can't find anything that makes the individual himself notable. In fact, the only source for the article mentions nothing that is stated in the lede; it just says that he is working on a linguistics study. Ish dar ian 05:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's a reasonably notable academic -- but among other scholars, probably known more for his earlier work on tentative Semitic / Indo-European correspondences etc., rather than for his later work in full-on Nostratic mode (which is heavily emphasized in the article). AnonMoos (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This is a borderline case. The guideline is WP:SCHOLAR, and that requires that "the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". His few papers have been cited quite a bit, but just in passing. Could go either way on this one. --Noleander (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weal keep?. We can look at the numbers for comparison with other linguists. GS h-index is 11 in a fairly low-cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete - I would fall on the side of deletion. He seems to have minor notability but not enough, in my opinion, to warrant his own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsZippy (talk • contribs) 10:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 23:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He does seem to be a recognized expert on Nostratic — as an example, in Georg's review of a book by Salmons and Joseph he is included in a list of three prominent supporters of Nostratic. He has decent citation counts in a low-citation subject, and is doing remarkably well as an unaffiliated academic. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2011 (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.