Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Harris (translation researcher)

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. Of note is that the nominator later stated that the subject may possess notability per Wikipedia's standards, stating (in part), "I would retract this AfD, but let's rather get a few more !votes and then tag the article for improvement" North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Harris (translation researcher)

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

This article is full of references to the subject's own work, but no-where is there a clear claim of notability. It's essentially a CV. Slashme (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mentioned several times in Google Books as an expert in their field, which would make them meet both WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. These sources include a book on how to interpret Harris's work on natural translation [1] and a book that describes him as a pioneer in using already translated texts to aid in machine translation, among others. --- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right! I saw a whole list of references at the bottom of the article, and none of them seemed to indicate any kind of notability of the kind that your search shows. I would retract this AfD, but let's rather get a few more !votes and then tag the article for improvement. --Slashme (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, but willing to be persuaded. Neither publishing nor having one's publications cited by others satisfies WP:ACADEMIC, but making "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" does. I see suggestions (e.g. here) that he "introduced the notion of bi-text". But that's not a notion I've heard of, so I can say whether it's a significant impact. I don't see evidence of notable fellowships, chairs, editing, or the like. Cnilep (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My !vote was a weak one, and User:Slashme's 9 July comment seems to come close to withdrawing the nomination. This is looking like a no consensus, default to keep, and I have no problem with that outcome. Cnilep (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm: I'm OK with that outcome as well. --Slashme (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2016 (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.