Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Svend Brinkmann


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Zackmann08  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Svend Brinkmann

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not sure about the notability of the subject and full of WP:NOTCV. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. GS h-index of 30 in a high cited field passes WP:Prof. Nominator is advised to devolop more certainty about notability before taking BLPs to Afd: WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC).
 * Keep as although this will need improvements, notability is certainly convincing in that, perhaps so severely for WP:PROF, but certainly for WP:AUTHOR, WorldCat shows not only over 2,900 library holdings, one of the highest held books was published by Oxford, and that's alone convincing by itself. SwisterTwister   talk  04:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. It needs work, but AfD is not cleanup. I've added one possible reference to the further reading section, but you'll need HighBeam subscription to access it (although I think all the relevant bits are viewable by anyone because the cut-off is after the mention).  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Note - Taken directly from WP:PROF Every topic on Wikipedia must have sources that comply with Verifiability. For instance, major awards listed must be confirmed, claims of impact in the field need to be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, library holdings, etc. (see below for specific notes), and so on. 99% of the page is unsourced, and the sources that are there are not WP:RELIABLE. At least 1 is a search engine, another is a dead link and one is to a self-published class page. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Author As answer to 'note'. Before deleting links and content, could I have a chance to fix the wrongs? I'm new to wikipedia and I find it hard to know how I should respond to this kind of discussion. As for the links and the one 'Zackmann08' mentions that leads to a search engine, this is because the source is located on a server that you can only acces with user registration and in case you have that, the link takes you to the right site. Regards A-K.C.P AUB (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * keep subject clearly passes WP:PROF, and the evidence that the subject passes WP:PROF is adequately sourced for non-contentious material. Article could easily be improved and brought into WP style, but there's no grounds for deletion. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2016 (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.