Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frede Blaabjerg


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  07:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Frede Blaabjerg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability, severely lacking in sources and WP:NOTCV Zackmann08  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 *  Question Keep Would nominator like to comment on relevance of subject's GS citation record to WP:Prof criteria? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC).
 * Snow keep. Very clear pass of WP:PROF #C1 (ISI highly cited, and five of his papers have over 1000 cites on Google scholar ), #C2 (Power Electronics Award, knighthood, etc), #C3 (IEEE Fellow), and #C8 (editor-in-chief of an IEEE Transactions), at least. The nominator deserves a WP:TROUT for this stunning failure of WP:BEFORE. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * appologies for the late response. Been traveling.... Taken directly from WP:PROF Every topic on Wikipedia must have sources that comply with Verifiability. For instance, major awards listed must be confirmed, claims of impact in the field need to be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, library holdings, etc. (see below for specific notes), and so on. 99% of the page is unsourced. I just removed 3 "references" from the page, 1 was a dead link, 1 linked to a search engine and 1 linked to a home page of a website. NONE of these three verified any of the information in the article. I will be first to admit that I certainly earn a good trout slap now and then, but in this case I stand by analysis. -- Zackmann08  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You get a trout from me as well for not carrying out WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC).
 * And a whale from me for removing all the awards from the article, while the AfD was still ongoing, after several of them had been noted here as a cause for notability, and with no evidence that you made any attempt to source any of them before removing them . —David Eppstein (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a clear case. Article needs improvements in formatting and referencing, but notability shouldn't be an issue. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Author I am new to writing articles on wikipedia. What is expected from me in these discussions? And for how long will they be active? When links and content is deleted from my article, I cant really fix these mistakes. Please be more accurate on what is expected from me. Regards A-K.C.P AUB (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2016 (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.