Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sofia Åkerberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 - consensus is that she doesn't met the notability guidelines at the moment. Article copied to userspace as requested. Yomanganitalk 08:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sofia Åkerberg

Swedish scholar, article makes no claim of notability, but was probably created because of the subject's links to the conspiracy theory movement. No articles link here. The subject has no notable publications and clearly fails the Professor test. A google search turns up exactly 339 hits of which only about 130 are unique [1], Google scholar gets about 10 hits.[2], but nothing stands out that would speak to notability, a search of Amazon.com turns up nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielF (talk • contribs)

  • Weak delete, but somebody should get hold of her dissertation to expand the Wikipedia article on London Zoo. (What is the "conspiracy theory movement"? Just to prevent any misunderstandings, it looks from her bibliography like she has written a couple of things about conspiracy theories, not contributed to promulgating them.) Uppland 22:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom, no notability asserted. - Crockspot 14:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 10:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Nothing that makes her stand out as notable, lots of published journal stuff, but that is not notable or unusual for a professor either. --NuclearZer0 13:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it is indeed sad that i that i need to bring it up, but i will: she speeks ill of CT's, so you can take it easy on the "DETELE DELETE DELETE 911 POV". She had a large article on Svenska Dagbladet and was used as the only source ("Källor") [3]. Also, keep in mind that Sweden is a small country, 9 million people, so she is notable in that context. This is a world-wide covering encyclopedia, and not only a USA covering one, right? --Striver 21:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Here [4] is she prominently displayed at Umeå University.--Striver 21:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • It makes sense to have a lower quantitative threshold for things like sales for poets writing in small languages, but for academics there is a given hierarchy and career which is similar all over the world, even though the titles may vary. Åkerberg is not a professor, not even a docent yet, and her main work so far, her dissertation, is published in English on an English and general historical topic, so there is no reason to include her on some kind of "national" quota, as might be done for scholars whose research may be of importance despite little international recognition. (Her page at the university is nothing special; a lot of junior academics, including graduate students, have pages like that presenting their research.) And this comes from someone who usually defends notable but little known academics on AFD. Upp◦land 22:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC). Revised. Upp◦land 06:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep:Seems notable See here and should :Knoha:ve a Wikipedia entry RaveenS
    RaveenS - your google search doesn't put the name in quotations, if you look at it carefully, the majority of the results are irrelevant. Searching again with the name in quotations yields only a few hundred results. GabrielF 22:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Sandy (Talk) 03:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable Tbeatty 07:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • comment in case the resutl is "delete", i would request to have the article userfied. Thanks. --Striver 12:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, article seems to only exist to buoy the notability of David Icke.--Rosicrucian 19:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, how did you arrive to that conclusion? The article is not even linked from there. --Striver 21:44, 29 November 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.