Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berit Brogaard


 * 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   keep.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Berit Brogaard

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This individual does not pass WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. It all appears to be sourced to various primary sources, with only one mention of Brogaard in reliable sources that are not regarding the synesthesia research. I had previously tagged it for proposed deletion, but the only reason it was removed is because the de-tagger thought that it was "controversial" and requires a full AFD.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 11:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. The clearest potential qualification under PROF is her editorial position.  From the context, "American editor" suggests a position subordinate to the Editor-in-Chief, which is the usual standard.  Does anyone know how that journal is organized?— James Cantor (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject's GS page shows 724 cites with an h-index of 13. This is probably enough to pass WP:Prof in philosophy. Why did nominator ignore this matter? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC).
 * Weak keep. I don't know that citation numbers alone are the right metric, but I'm seeing several papers in Google scholar by other people that are primarily about Brogaard's work (rather than just incidentally citing her), to the point that her name appears in their titles: Damschen et al 2006, Moretti 2008, Schaffer 2009, and one I don't have a link for, Szabo, Z. (2006). “Comments on Berit Brogaard’s 'The but not All: A New Account of PluralDefinite Descriptions’ ”, The Eastern Division Meeting of the APA, Dec. 30, 2006. I think in this field that level of coverage is probably enough for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Xxanthippe, plus added International Who's Who in Poetry 2005 entry as Danish Poet "Publications: Danskere til Salg, 1991; Livet I lysthuset, 1992; Solnedgangens Orange" In ictu oculi (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject's work has had a substantial degree of coverage in mainstream media. 16:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.104.45 (talk)
 * Keep because she's purty -- Lord  Bromblemore  17:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 17:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I am the one who removed the PROD tag, not because I have a horse in the race per se, but had a suspicion that further discussion of the subject would elicit a wider variety of opinion on subject's notability. I see from the foregoing discussion that that was indeed the case. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2013 (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.