Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lene Auestad


 * 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. Consensus is clear, and reviews of an author's work are as substantial a reference as any other for determining the notability of that author. bd2412 T 12:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Lene Auestad

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

One newspaper article, a few reviews of her books and links to several of her books and articles are not sufficient to establish notability according to WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Famous dog   (c) 10:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Tentative Keep Multiple positive reviews in scholarly journals of multiple books suggests a pass per WP:AUTHOR.     I say "tentative" because some (not all) of these reviews are for volumes she edited, rather than books she wrote herself &mdash; still examples of her work being noted and approved of, but arguably less significant than reviews of single-author works. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:AUTHOR, multiple books with multiple published reviews. However, the article text looks heavily promotional and possibly copied from elsewhere; I've trimmed some definite copyvio from the books section but the rest could probably also use attention. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I can find a bunch of news / journal sources to use, though they're all in Norwegian. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- meets WP:AUTHOR with sufficient reviews to pass the bar of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment If you appropriately limit Google search, it turns up very few, mainly local news items that mention her directly. I really don't think that this author meets the notability bar. Having your academic book reviewed in an academic journal within your academic field of research is entirely normal for academics. If Lene Auestad meets this criteria, we need to write an extra 100,000 articles on academics. On a related note, I think that the WP:AUTHOR guidelines are so open to interpretation as to be useless. Famous  dog   (c) 09:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment -- authors and academics are notable for their works so the reviews are relevant. I don't see a point in stating that Having your academic book reviewed in an academic journal within your academic field of research is entirely normal for academics. 3rd party reviews is how the notability of authors is determined. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The basic notability guideline states: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." WP:AUTHOR is aimed at "creative professionals" and doesn't apply here. WP:PROF does apply. Please tell me which of these criteria this particular researcher meets. I can't see any. Famous  dog   (c) 06:37, 29 November 2017 (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.