Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Meinhof

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 07:18, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Meinhof

A German linguist and professor at the School of Oriental Studies in Berlin. 533 google hits. [1] What distinguishes this person from other linguists and professors to make him notable? If notability is not a prerequisite for inclusion on Wikipedia for this individual, then what is? GRider\^talk 00:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. If he's good enough for a puny encyclopedia like Britannica, he's good enough for us. iMeowbot~Mw 03:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, there have been other professors with far more hits and publications losing VfDs, undistinguished linguist. Megan1967 06:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The britannica entry speaks for itself. Xezbeth 06:39, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If he's good for Britannica, then let him remain in Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 06:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep obviously. He is notable. There is an article about him in the Neue Deutsche Biographie as well (index here). / u p p l a n d 07:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable linguist. I'll have a go at this myself.Capitalistroadster 07:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Now added several paragraphs mainly based on What Links Here. Meinhof has several entries on what links here confirming his importance as a scholar. Capitalistroadster 09:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete as the article doesn't establish notability. It is hinted at that he is notable, however, in which case the article should be expanded, but currently he fails the professor test. Radiant! 09:55, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Trilobite (Talk) 10:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. EggplantWizard 17:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. One of the first linguists to study African languages. How exactly do people fail to find that notable, given that we'll accept just about any actor ever to appear in a film these days? Average Earthman 22:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Very notable scholar. — Gwalla | Talk 00:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough for inclusion. Carrp | Talk 06:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, being one of the first to do something is notable in my book. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ---- — unsigned vote by Tezeti at 13:57, 21 Feb 2005
• Keep I wholeheartedly agree with iMeowbot, Xezbeth, and Zzyzx11 - anything to be found in tiny, self-important Britannica should fit into our much larger universe of knowledge. Frankly, I think someone should sit down with the Britannica (and the other major books) and make sure that we have at least something for every entry that they have (which is completely legal, so long as we do not copy their exact text)... or we could get 30 volunteers to each sit down with one volume... — unsigned vote by BD2412 at 18:35, 22 Feb 2005
• Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 09:56, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.