Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernardo Sorj

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 we have consensus to keep this article, I reckon. Further, there is not nor ever was a valid claim for speedying this article — from the re-creation, we can just consider that PROD contested ... fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bernardo Sorj

This is a re-creation of a previously deleted article re-created by the original author and subject of the article. Mallanox 08:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)*Comment — Just to note: 778 google hits, and 785 Yahoo hits. Article is well written. I leave it to others to detirmine the state of this in Wikipedia policy. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 01:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• • How is the article well-written? It looks very ugly. Speedy delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 01:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment on what speedy critera are we deleting by? I don't see one. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 01:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment G4 (recreation of previously deleted material). Danny Lilithborne 02:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. The previous deletion[1] was from an uncontested prod rather than an AfD. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if the claim of having written 20 books is accurate, I'd say he's easily worth an article. Amazon seems to back up his claim of having published several books. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Possible copyright violation, appears to be copied directly from the bio on his website. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 03:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Recreated Previously Deleted Material --Xrblsnggt 03:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - he's published 20 books (21 are listed in the references) and more than 100 articles on a legitimate area of academic research, and he's been a professor. Pass. - Richardcavell 06:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A notable scholar and author. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep seems kosher and notable enough. 10 published books on Amazon Ohconfucius 06:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC) delete per Mallanox. violates WP:BIO unsourced and WP:AUTO. I have preempted the deletion and moved the contents to User:Bernardo Sorj. Ohconfucius 08:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - is no one worried that an article written by the subject is going to be biased? Objectivity is the key to wikipedia. I don't question the notability, it's the subjectivity. Mallanox 08:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I recognize the possibility for bias, but the article is essentially the recitation of a professor's CV. I don't see any evidence of opinion creeping in there that might distort the article. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 09:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I can find several of his books in Swedish libraries. Seems perfectly legitimate. WP:AUTO is not an absolute policy that requires deletion (and it can never be policed in any case, as people can take usernames different from their real names). Tupsharru 10:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 13:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Andrew Lenahan with the added comment that someone has moved this article into userspace while this deletion discussion was taking place, which is not helpful to do until this debate closes. Yamaguchi先生 21:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - he really did write all those books, just check Amazon.com. Notable.--Aguerriero (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:AUTO violation is a contributing factor, not an automatic deletion. Oh confucius, you've been too bold. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

slap-wrist noted Ohconfucius 06:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per most of the above comment concerning keep. --HResearcher 16:44, 14 August 2006 (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.