Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hedi Enghelberg


 * 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. With WP:NOTAVOTE in mind, it seems that overall, consensus indicates this individual is not sufficiently notable. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hedi Enghelberg

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

This is the pompously written autobiography of an author who, if Google hits are any indication, is unlikely to pass WP:BIO.  Sandstein  20:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Suspected copyvio of this — unless the linked site is a grab from Wikipedia rather than the other way around. Incidentally, delete per nom.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's definitely a Wikipedia mirror.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 19:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ofcourse the article need some small re-write but overall it by a mile passes the notability line.--Judo112 (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence to support that statement? Can you point at significant discussion of the subject in sources that can be called reliable? Drmies (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Strong Keep this article has provided me with all the facts od enghelberg. thats why is say strong keep today.--Judo112 (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not a reason to keep.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  22:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, WP:BIO.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  22:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable author, bio written by the subject herself. Self-promotion. -- Sander Säde 07:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Sander, unless I am wrong, the article subject is male. Editors should read articles carefully before contributing to depriving the world of knowledge.Turqoise127 (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Subject is not sufficiently notable to warrant an article at this time, independent and reliable references not available to adequately verify the stated facts. Nathan  T 14:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - self-publicity backed by ad-hom postings on talk pages of nominator and first voter. Bazj (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, per WP:PROF #1; book available in numerous academic and university libraries. I just don't know if the statement is sourced, but it warrants attempt to source. Are many editors just not aware of WP:PROF guidelines? I am not sure if COI is an issue here, but notability guidelines ought to be known by editors.Turqoise127 (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "It warrants attempts to source": yes it does, and you could have done so to bolster your case. As it happens, however, WorldCat is not kind to you: there appear to be no academic or university libraries that have the book on the shelf--the book is held in the US by only three libraries. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No need to be condescending. Before you start wikilawyering again, you might do well to actually read the policies you slap other editors around with. Item 1: that a book is held by a library does not mean it has made a significant impact on a discipline. Are you confusing WP:PROF with Author? Item 2: The article is very bloated, full of talk about the subject's parents and their history, but in between the lines I see quite clearly that the claim is never made that this person is an academic or a professor. So where do you get the applicabilaty of WP:PROF from? "Notability guidelines ought to be known by editors"? Yes, and most editors here know them, it seems to me. You might benefit from another reading of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am assuming this person as some kind of an academic intellectual capacity since is an author, I could be incorrect- I will always admit if I am wrong. If you read WP:PROF past the "Criteria" paragraph, Within "Notes and examples", Point 1, last bullet: "...In these cases one can also look at how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries ....when evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied." Per WP:CIVIL, incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours... I never displayed any of those. And WP:AGF is a cute premise, but the real world is a bit harsh.Turqoise127 (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your implication that editors here don't know the guidelines, that is pretty rude, I'd say. Telling another editor, "Editors should read articles carefully before contributing to depriving the world of knowledge." That is also pretty rude. Once you start assuming bad faith, as you suggest you are doing, you are going to have to live with the the consequences: accusing people of bad faith (by stating uninformed opinions, for instance) will make editors question your good faith. Your quote from WP:PROF includes the word "person"--the paragraph is talking about "scholars in humanities", so the policy clearly does not apply here: we are not dealing with an academic or a scholar here; the subject has a university degree in engineering who writes poetry, novels, and works on terrorism--and that last work, which could conceivably fall into some kind of scholarly discipline, was self-published. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My intentions are not to be rude, my approach may be harsh though, I concur. I apologize if I offended anyone, and to you if I am being rude in your opinion. I wish to withdraw my "keep" vote here, I did not know the work was self-publishedTurqoise127 (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Being autobiographical is no reason to delete. Please provide proof that this is the case and allow consensus to decide if the contributions are relevent enough to keep. Articles that have actualy been created by the subject who actively edit and contribute is not against policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Substantial proof has been decided, please read the entire AFD for said proof, instead of just the nomination.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  23:44, 17 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.