Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Rhenman


 * 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. JForget 21:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Eric Rhenman

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Declined CSD, so bringing it here for further evaluation. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, and suggestion that the nominator remove from AFD, based on article improvements. OK, I just spent 30 minutes on this article and was able to dredge up a ton on this person.  He was a leader in the field of management research in Sweden, based on what I have read.  I also want to comment generally about what happened with this article today and how I think it negatively effects wikipedia --  Twelve minutes after this article was created, it was nominated for "speedy deletion."  Luckily another editor saved it from speedy deletion about 2 hours later, but it still is now up for "deletion."  I believe it really discourages new wiki contributors to push brand new articles into AfD, when their real problem is lack of citation and need for expansion.  I'm sure this has all been discussed a million times before, but isn't there some way a brand new article can be be alerted for expansion/improvement/possible lack of notability -- before getting it right to AfD?  --Milowent (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Typically when I decline a speedy deletion, I ship the article off to a procedural AfD nom. I don't really have an opinion on whether or not it should be deleted, so I don't really think it's necessary to withdraw the nomination. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying, and its better than just leaving it as a speedy, but if you don't have an opinion on whether it should be deleted, such a practice results in a bias towards ill-advised AfD nominations. In other words, the person who nominated this for speedy, perhaps without much thought as it comes within 900 seconds of this article's birth, has an undue influence on its future. --Milowent (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. There's a facility when articles get tagged for speedy deletion to alert an admin. Just put the tag on the article. AfD generally gets a wide consensus from a lot of editors, and this discussion runs for a week - so more time to get a few references on there and that kinda thing. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, a procedural AfD nom is typically appropriate after a 2nd prod, but typically not so appropriate after a declined speedy deletion. I'd rather it were left up to the speedy nominator whether to bring to AfD in the hope they read and follow WP:BEFORE first. Qwfp (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —CronopioFlotante (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Weak keep When I proposed speedy delete it had no references whatsoever. Some notability has been established... not sure if it's enough.  Teapot  george Talk  20:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. A Google Books search for his name in books authored by others that can be previewed shows plenty of evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to satisfy WP:N. In fact this one quotes R. Edward Freeman saying he is "perhaps the originator of the term" 'stakeholder theory', which that WP article seems to credit to Freeman at present. Qwfp (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, easily meets PROF (though looking only at what is on google (scholar, news) doesn't make this immediately apparent -- as is often the case with people whose work is from an earlier period. Proposing/nominating an article for deletion is to be based not on the state of the article at the time but on a judgment formed after one has tried to determine for oneself whether the person is notable.  If you don't know, don't nominate; do the research first.  Chances are, people who see the AfD will not know the person and will have to do a bit of research to make a judgment; if that research turns up evidence of notability, the AfD was a waste of our time that could have been prevented by doing it yourself and then not nominating.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. GS gives h index around 11, older work so not so much cited. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep in agreement with Nomoskedasticity -- & in agreement with him also  I note that h index by itself is a useless measurement for anyone working in the 1970s, especially in Europe in the social sciences.     DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Given all the keep votes and the weak keep by Teapotgeorge, I think that this is a good candidate for a speedy keep. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It has references. And I don't think there is a any procedure listed anywhere to move a protested speedy delete to an AFD.  You have to have an opinion, and believe it should be deleted, to send it here.  Otherwise you are just filling up AFD with nonsense nominations, and wasting everyone's time.   D r e a m Focus  02:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Move to close. "Declined CSD, so bringing it here for further evaluation" is not a valid reason for deletion. The nominator has given no reason per policy to delete the article. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, because I have no opinion on whether or not it should be deleted. This is purely a procedural nomination. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have recently seen the phrase  "procedural nomination" used more and more when brining an article to AFD and have to ask the question; "....what the *&^% does that mean". I have looked through our proceedures - policies and guidelines and have not found that phrase either used - listed or even mentioned.  On the other hand, I have seen it stated in before "...that before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator or notifying an associated wikiproject, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD."  This guideline seems to invalidate the reasoning for bringing an article to AFD as "Procedural Nomination".  Thanks ShoesssS Talk 16:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Juliancolton, there is no "procedure" that requires or permits this. In fact, WP:BEFORE effectively prohibits it.  Please don't do it again.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, considering that many, many admins do this, I think it's best to initiate a discussion at WT:AFD. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Started. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 16:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "The nominator has given no reason per policy to delete the article." I would assume that the mention that there was a CSD is a good reason as it shows that someone proposed for it but in the wrong manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it shows that someone wanted to delete the article. It gives us no reason to believe that they had a valid reason. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Julian asked me to comment on procedural nominations. I think it's reasonable to bring a situation here involving the keeping of an article that needs community resolution--although I do not call these "procedural nomination". Myself, I try to do this only if I personally think the article should be deleted, but sometimes it's unavoidable. Suppose I come across a challenged article at CSD where it is clear that it passes the bar for speedy, or thee is no speedy reason that fits, but which might well not pass WP:N. If I think it should be deleted, I take it here and give an argument for deletion. If I think it should be kept, I decline the speedy, explain why I think it should be kept on the talk p. or at least the summary, and then whoever challenged it can bring it here if they still think it should go & think it worth the trouble--often they don't. If I simply do not know what should be done with it, or think that others should give opinions also, I can either wait for the original tagger, or simply bring it here. I usually wait for the tagger, unless it's clear that it involves a substantial issue. Waiting for the tagger simplifies the discussion, but if I know it should be discussed and they might not bring it, then I do. This is within the discretion of the admin--or in fact of anyone else who thinks a discussion that might lead to deletion is needed.  -- such as when I am bringing it on behalf of someone who for one reason or other is not able to .     DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 6 September 2009 (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.