Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman E. Amundson


 * 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 no consensus. North America1000 01:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Norman E. Amundson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable subject. A single book by this writer won a single award from his professional association. The article is primarily a list of languages the book was translated into, with new ones being added as new translations are published. No references, and a search found a single quote from him (one of about ten people quoted in the article) in a single article about an unrelated subject. No mainstream mentions of him/his book. Page is an orphan except for a link from surname Amundson page, which was added the same day this page was created. valereee (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Weak delete I don't think this person passes GNG nor WP:ACADEMIC. I say "weak delete" because I don't know the importance of the awards in his particular field. For example, I found that he was given the Stu Conger Leadership Award by the Canadian Career Development Foundation . It doesn't look like it would raise him to notability, but I'd like to hear if anyone knows differently. LaMona (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * {|cellpadding=0 style="border: 1px solid #A3A3A3; background-color: #FFFFFF" align=left width=auto


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Davewild (talk) 07:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * }
 * Weak keep: A h-index of 28 and nearly 3000 citations is probably a pass of WP:PROF. Esquivalience t 03:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Esquivalience - could you point to his profile? I don't see it on Google, so you must be accessing it elsewhere? thanks. LaMona (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I calculated his h-index and a script with Google Scholar. Esquivalience t 01:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I find that the scholar calculator includes a lot of false hits (e.g. J Amundson on a search for Norman E Amundson). I don't think we can use that alone to determine notability. LaMona (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. North America1000 17:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The weakest of keeps per Esquivalience. This is a very borderline case, but I think there is sufficient scholarly coverage to pass the academic notability guild lines. Additionally, Good-reads reports eight separate published works by him. which is confirmed by amazon. He also appears to be featured as an expert on some sort of video series. Winner 42  Talk to me!  17:25, 29 May 2015 (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.