Deletion of John J. Gumperz

Comment: vandalous/bad faith nomination, as well as a violation of . Subject of article is extraordinarily notable: the Britannica authority in his field, a BBC consultant, a regularly published author, a noted academic, etc, etc, etc. http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/fghij/gumperz_john.htmlhttp://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Anthro/gumperz/gumppub.html Original article was posted by a new user a short time before the nominator prodded it without doing a shred of checking, even the the article properly asserted notability and gave no indication it was unreliable. After I removed the prod, commenting on the fact that the nominator had made no effort to verify his absurd claim of non-notability, he posted a rude personal attack on my talk page.  And the article rather prominently asserts notability, saying the subject's work has "benefitted" several academic disciplines and created a new area of research/work in sociolinguistics. Notability can (and usually should) be asserted without peacock or terms or conclusory phrasing. This nomination is an expression of spite. Can we close this already
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (WP:BITE)

Comment: appears to meet the (proposed)  based on publication list alone. Based on this discussion and previous experience, though, I can second the recommendation to occasionally peruse , at least
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROFTEST||WP:CIVIL)

Comment: per .  I'm not altogether sure that the nomination was made in good faith, but I certainly don't approve of Monicasdude's imputation of malign motive to Bug (and I agree certainly with him that the creator of an article should make every effort to demonstrate the subject's notability straightaway).  Similarly, I don't think Monicasdude's "would it kill you" comment is wholly gauche or untoward and surely doesn't merit a reference to .  Essentially, I think this debate should be conducted without reference to the article's creator or nominator for deletion.  Finally, though, I must strenuously object to Monica's continued ascription of the term "vandalism" to nominations for deletion, for reasons I explain http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FRick_Barnes&diff=44721308&oldid=44670849 here (this is the second AfD about the proper disposition of which we've concurred but about which I've had to write separately to distinguish my beliefs from hers, and I wonder if perhaps she oughtn't to rethink how she articulates some of her positions here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROFTEST||WP:DICK)