Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pål Johan Karlsen (3rd nomination)

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 Delete, proving once again that consensus can change. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pål Johan Karlsen

Pål Johan Karlsen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Orphaned, and notability is a problem here. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I fixed the broken nomination. I've nominated this for deletion once before (technically twice because of another broken nomination. I could really care less this time. It's certainly WP:AUTO, and it's of borderline notability. I think I'm going to think on this one for a while. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• SPEEDY KEEP. His notability ought to be judged incontrovertible. He writes for Norway's largest newspaper, his first novel was reviewed by Norway's second largest tabloid. His editor post puts him at the centre of Norwegian academia. __meco (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per meco's link, which provides significant coverage Corpx (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The paragraph on his novel is a copyvio of [1], and I have just removed it. Not notable as an academic--he is apparently still a postdoctoral fellow. Eight papers in Web of Science, highest citations 10, 6, 6. Editor is chief is often significant, but this journal (Journal of the Norwegian Psychological Association. = Norsk Psykologforening. Tidsskrift = Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologforening, ISSN 0332-6470) is a minor one, not in Web of Science or Scopus or even PubMed & is in only 1 US library--it apparently is a local society magazine. I cannot verify he is the editor in chief. The novel's single review is in a newspaper to which he contributes. He can not be in the center of Norwegian academia as a postdoc, though probably his advisor is, & should have an article. DGG (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per DGG and his thoughtful investigation of a cleverly done piece of self-promotion. Subject fails WP:PROF. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. He is notable in Norway as a writer. The number of scholarly papers and citations is not terribly high, but WP:BIO does not include any precise thresholds. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I'd rather keep something likely to grow than to delete and lose it altogether. Article is an excellent stub and needs improving through regular editing per WP:AfD. Expand and also use caution when labeling autobiography, it could be a fan or even a stalker of his or simply someone unaware of copyvio issues. I built an entire bio with permission from the author but was clueless, at the time, how to prove wikipedia had permission to use the content. We should encourage the addition of good content rather than punish for efforts up to now. Benjiboi 06:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• delete fails WP:PROF, one novel reviewed in one paper doesn't move me as a notable novelist. I don't see the "extensive coverage" in reliable secondary sources required to meet WP:N. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per DGG and Pete Hurd. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2008 (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.