Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erling Hauge


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Erling Hauge

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable academic who has not received coverage in third-party sources. Only an associate professor and not a professor, Hauge's bibliography does not distinguish him in particular, the typical scientist publishes at least ten times as many articles. The articles currently has three sources: (1) a book without page number (2) OK enough, but not really discussing Hauge's person. Would be better suited for an article about spider research in Norway. (3) an obituary in shape of a forum post, a type of source I have never seen in Wikipedia and hopefully will never see again. I searched for obituaries in actual media outlets without finding any. A search in the database Retriever for "førsteamanuensis Erling Hauge" yielded 4 hits between 1988-2006, none of which are about him, but are about spiders with a couple of comments from Hauge. Many people will comment in the media from time to time, for instance a police lieutenant about criminal cases. Geschichte (talk) 10:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Some associate professors are notable, but usually not those who end their career that way.  Doesn't look to meet WP:NPROF, no sign of other significant coverage. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment In what way did his death relate to his lack of notability? He "died in September 2012 after a long illness." Seems ordinary for an academic. Edison (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing in the article quite satisfies WP:PROF. Edison (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Citations not good enough for WP:PROF (not unusual for taxonomists) and no other notability apparent. (However, unlike the nominator, I would be willing to accept a forum-post obituary as a source, in other circumstances. Specifically, the subject would have to be otherwise notable, as that kind of posting does not count for notability, and whoever made the post would need some credibility as an associate of the subject.) —David Eppstein (talk) 07:44, 29 November 2019 (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.