Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John J. Gumperz
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
— User:Monicasdude, 19:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:BITE (Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers)