Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Appel Nissen


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Maria Appel Nissen

 * – ( View AfD View log )

De-prodded. All 11 references are regular websites (self-published) or written by the article's subject (not independent). WP:BEFORE not turning up WP:GNG passing sources. Also, she doesn't appear to pass WP:NACADEMIC. h-index of 8, her most cited paper has 23 cites. I think this was translated from another Wikipedia, and I appreciate that the editor took the time to do this, but sadly I don't think this person meets our notability guidelines. – Novem Linguae (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete fails both GNG and academic notability as is well explained by the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Citation counts not enough to make a convincing case for WP:PROF. Her Google Scholar profile lists multiple books, but all but one are edited rather than authored, and I couldn't find any reviews of the authored one (Nye horisonter i socialt arbejde: en refleksionsteori) so I don't think she passes WP:AUTHOR either. That leaves only one plausible claim of notability, being editor-in-chief of Nordic Social Work Research, WP:PROF. But while I can verify this claim, I'm not convinced that this is a significant enough journal to use it as the sole reason for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2021 (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.