Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susumu Kuno

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. Singu larity 06:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Susumu Kuno

Delete - Individual's notability not established within the article per WP:BIO. Article has been orphaned since 2006. Djma12 ^(talk) 02:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 03:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. NN and unlikely to improve. Barring a miracle, of course. Bullzeye^{(Complaint Dept./Brilliant Acts)} 15:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Fg2 10:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Far be it from me to suggest that Kuno is anywhere as significant as any Pokemon, Japanese voice actor or of course Japanese cheesecake model, but he has had several books published: the article only lists those published in English, which include a couple from eminent university presses (one from what's arguably the most eminent linguistics publisher of them all, MIT). My copy of Tsujimura's Introduction to Japanese Linguistics (the only relevant book I have within arm's reach) fails to give such vital information as Kuno's height, weight, surĩsaizu, handedness, star sign, or which rival's linguistics text he tore up or cried over, but it does manage to cite Kuno's work on a number of pages, leading to six sole-author items in the bibliography as well as a number of coauthored works. Kuno's not on TV, doesn't run on Playstation or Wii, doesn't wear undersized bikinis: does he matter at all? Oddly enough, I'd have thought that he did, so I'd say keep. But maybe that just shows I'm weird or something. -- Hoary 13:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he really is that notable, would you mind expanding on the article and adding more sources? The article has been an orphaned stub for over a year and has little notable content. Djma12 ^(talk) 22:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it has the content it needs. His academic work. That they have been published by the places that did is what shows them notable and well-recognized by his peers. DGG (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — highly notable author of several published, important works, linguist and academic; numerous published references. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 13:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several of the articles are in Communications of the ACM. a high prestige journal over a very wide field. But this is reasonable, he was Professor of Linguistics at Harvard. They do not appoint undistinguished people to professorships there. He has passed numerous peer-reviews in his life of much greater stringency than here--or perhaps someone is really under the delusion that our standards are or ought to be higher? Perhaps someone thinks the editors here have better judgement in these things? DGG (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is not with this individual's credentials, they seem impeccable. I'm merely pointing out that the article as it stands is far below standard. Normally, I would just say that it requires improvement, but it has been tagged as orphaned for over a year now. If you would like to improve the article so that it meets WP:BIO standards, by all means. Djma12 ^(talk) 23:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it's marked as a stub. That's the whole point of the stub markers: to indicate an article is lacking in information and needs to be expanded. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further, one probable reason why it's (near-) orphaned is that linguistics -- real linguistics, not droll lexicographic oddities and moral panics about the alleged decay of the language etc etc -- is poorly represented in en:WP. This is because, despite the best efforts of such people as Steven Pinker, real linguistics is of interest to a smallish percentage of people, and a smallish percentage of these are ready to write up substantive matters at short notice. (Those few who are ready tend to be hard at work on their PhD theses, their own papers, helping others with their PhD theses, etc.) Thus such an everyday linguistics notion as scrambling is nowhere explained and hardly mentioned in en:WP, and thus there can be no link to Kuno from Scrambling (linguistics) or whatever. -- Hoary 10:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG and Hoary. AfD is not the place to point out that an article is below standards. Rather, the appropriate project (if any) should be notified so that the article can be improved. Keep in mind that there are thousands and thousands of articles that fall under WP:JA, and we can't possible keep close tabs on all of them. A simple note would have sufficed. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kuno is highly notable and is essentially a household name among linguists. The article may be lacking, but that is only reason to improve it, not delete it. Bendono 05:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- suggest adding redirect from "Festschrift" to "Substantial recognition as an expert by ones peers." -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Could you rephrase this suggestion? As it is, I don't understand it. -- Hoary 09:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep. I think the point is that the article contains a wikilink to festschrift, when it describes a pair of festschrifts devoted to Kuno, but that it may not be obvious to non-academics that a festschrift is a sign of substantial recognition. I don't see a need to change the article itself, but I agree that this is important evidence for passage of WP:PROF #2 or #6. —David Eppstein 19:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly what I meant. Sorry about the bad joke. I'd regard a Festschrift as about as important as a Time magazine cover for determining the importance of a researcher. To get a Festschrift a whole group of your colleagues have to decide that your ideas and publications are important. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Kuno is a significant figure in Japanese linguistics. With all the other crap that gets to stay in WP I can't see why anyone would think this article is taking up too many bytes. Djiann 22:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Beating a dead horse here with my Johnny-come-lately vote, but it's pretty obvious that the article will be saved for the reasons stated above. J Readings 23:58, 23 August 2007 (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.