Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katrine Dalsgård (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Tone 21:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Katrine Dalsgård
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Weak delete. Some Google scholar results, but not especially notable ones; arguably flunks WP:PROF. Previous AFD in Aug 2007 had no consensus. Has had notability tag since Sep 2007 without anyone adding references to this orphan article. We've kept articles of people less notable, and deleted bios of more notable people. THF (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —John Z (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless evidence is presented that she passes WP:PROF; I don't see any such evidence in the nominated version of the article. In the previous AfD, Dhartung claimed that there were "quite a few Google Scholar results" (and if that were true it could be used to argue a pass of WP:PROF #1), but I'm not seeing it. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF at all.  JBsupreme (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pass neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. Assistant professor who could attain notability in the future, but not even close at the moment. Most widely held book in libraries currently in less than 3 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete First, WorldCat, despite its name covers almost exclusively US and Canadian libraries. The work listed there ,The one all-black town worth the pain is not actually a book, but a 22 page article published originally in the series  Odense American Studies International series., Working paper ; no. 44. which too is rarely held in the US. Publication in such a series often means that it has been published as an article elsewhere as well, and in fact, However, the paper was republished in  African American Review, Vol. 35, No. 2 (Summer, 2001), pp. 233-248 (a very widely held journal), and consequently seems to have been frequently cited judging by Google Scholar along with some other works of hers': (the reason David E missed it is that his search used the au:prefix, which limits the search to works of which she is the author, not where she is cited.  Further, he used the search string K-Dalsgård, which limits the search literally to the form with the å, and most of the listings there use the spelling Alsgaard. (If one omits the hyphen, it searches all forms, though it also brings up other many other Dalsgårds--using quotes has the same limiting effect as an hyphen. GS works peculiarly, as compared to more professionally targeted databases)   However, this is the only significant publication so far, and therefore this assistant professor is not yet notable.  DGG (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Concur with DGG about the paper in African American Review being the sole significant publication; A very loose search of Web of Science, Author=(dalsgard k* OR dalsgaard k*), confirms this. Moreover, it has been cited by only 5 other archival-journal-published articles. As the notability claim seems best matched to WP:PROF, it does not appear this article passes muster. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:21, 23 January 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.