Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anders Ekström (historian of ideas)


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Anders Ekström (historian of ideas)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Run-of-the-mill professor. GScholar citations not that great. Nothing to shout about. Fails WP:NPROF. ! dave 11:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 11:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 11:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 11:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep There appears to be very little English-language sources to affirm this subject's notability, but there are a number of Swedish news sources where he is mentioned. I would err on the side of caution in advocating the maintaining of the article until better sourcing can be added to the text. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - per sources available. This article was created yesterday.BabbaQ (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment He seems to be a full professor at a major university, and Google scholar shows a number of publications which have been cited numerous times by others..I've seen better and worse articles on academics. Would the nominator or others please comment on how they think Google scholar results would or would not indicate that WP:NPROF is satisfied. Edison (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * By the amount of times his work is cited. Should be over 100 in most cases. I guess I must be terribly wrong. NPROF is the least comprehensible guideline for me. I must admit as well that I did not do WP:BEFORE (in the sense of a quick Google search) with the exception of Scholar hits. You have my permission to close this as speedy keep if you wish. ! dave  14:45, 2 January 2018 (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.