Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hans Wehr

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 of the debate was keep. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hans Wehr

User:Stifle marked this article for nn-bio. The creator of the article User:Orange typewriter removed the nn-bio notice, and asserted notability for the subject in User:Stifle's talk page ("I took off the deletion box which you had put on this. I don't know why you put it there. Hans Wehr is important for that dictionary. User:Orange typewriter"). As an assertion of notability has been made, I'm opening this nomination. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 22:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This was never a speedy. Notability asserted with first edit. -- JJay 22:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Where do you see an assertion of notability in the article? And an assertion of notability is not enough to keep an article. Some verification of notability is also required, at a minimum. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 22:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep He is notable for the standard Arabic-English dictionary. The article could be expanded. Dlyons493 Talk 22:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

**Comment - Then add the sources to the article establishing notability and verifiability. I'm getting really tired of editors saying an article should be kept when nothing in the article supports the assertions, and no references are cited. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 22:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC) Never mind. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 23:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, professor from age when it really ment scholar. Publications, has article in German and Japanese Wiki. The same for other linguists. Pavel Vozenilek 18:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep He is notable for the standard Arabic-English dictionary which has its own article already Wikipedia article on the dictionary as does the transliteration system that bears his name.

--217.146.112.220 21:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per 217.146.112.220. However, the article needs wikifing to the pages he points out. -- JLaTondre 01:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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.