Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Möller


 * 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. I looked over this discussion for days, and there are several good arguments from both sides; but it comes down to whether or not Tommy passes WP:ACADEMIC. The majority of the keep !votes are not anywhere near trying to satisfy this guideline, while the delete !votes showed real reasons to remove this article. However only one criteria from WP:ACADEMIC needs to be met for it to pass the guideline, and therefore per, he passes criteria 7, and therefore the few keeps that mentioned this make the consensus. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 19:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Tommy Möller

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable BLP of a professor. Doesn't meet the multiple, non-trivial requirement for sources. The NYT "source" only mentions a quote from him on some issue. Another source is his own book, and the last source is simply his university profile. Unit Anode  18:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Full professor (this the the meaning of "professor" in Swedish terminology) of political science at Stockholm University and active participant in Swedish political debate, clearly fulfills WP:ACADEMIC. The fact that this article has been nominated despite the fact that this has been pointed out on the discussion page seems to be related to the BLP out-of-process mass deletions a couple of days ago, of which this article was a part. Tomas e (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not every "full professor" merits a WP article. Unit  Anode  19:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And I just reviewed ACADEMIC again, and he doesn't fulfill even one of the requirements. Unit  Anode4  19:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A brief search pulls up these sources:      . Killiondude (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I however see little evidence that you have reviewed Prof. Möller's credentials. There is no higher "grade" of academic researcher than full professor in the Swedish university system, so in essence it looks like you (and OpenFuture below) say that it is not possible to achieve notability through any Swedish academic position. Membership of the Royal Academies is a bit more selective than "just" being a full professor (but they exist outside the university system itself), but there is no academy that is really focussed on political science or most other social sciences. So I would just have to assume that the vast majority of articles in Category:Swedish scientists will be AfD'd. Or is is it only the living ones that are non-notable under current standards? Tomas e (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you honestly claiming that there are no department heads in Swedish universities? They don't have any form of hierarchy? That may well be true, but even if it is, it's not Wikipedia's problem. Unit  Anode  03:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Swedish universities do have both department heads and named chairs. Tommy Möller is neither. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The only source that remotely approaches "non-trivial" is the last, which appears to be a primary source. The others only mention this guy once or twice. Unit  Anode  19:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's interesting to see scientific journals being branded "trivial" in discussions on notabilities of academics. Tomas e (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I called his coverage by these sources "trivial", and it is -- and I think you know it is. Unit  Anode  03:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. There may be a national divide here; in America, almost every academic is a professor of some kind. In European nations, such as the United Kingdom or Sweden, "professor" is used to refer to what Americans refer to as a "university professor", and normally is a "chaired" position. As such, this chap easily fulfils WP:ACADEMIC. The pdf provided by Killiondude (a government report gives more-than-significant coverage of the fellow. Ironholds (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you have to have a "named chair" or a "distinguished professor" title, and Tommy Möller doesn't. Having a chair is not enough according to WP:ACADEMIC. If those requirements are supposed to include all chairs, this needs to be clarified, because that's not what it says now. --OpenFuture (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. We've had a debate on his notability on the page, no-one has been able to show that he is notable. He does not fulfull WP:ACADEMIC, but may be notable some other way, but no arguments or support for such notability has arisen. --OpenFuture (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In that discussion it seemed that your opinion on notability was obviously that you had heard of him rather than anything in WP:ACADEMIC. Just out of curiosity, how many scientists have you heard of, and should we delete all the rest? Tomas e (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep he has written textbooks used at major universities,, passes points 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of WP:ACADEMIC. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How does he pass these criteria? I can't find any source that he passes any of these criteria. Specifically you mention criteria 5 which, according to the discussions here it is by now completely evident that he do *not* pass. Could any of the people here that wants to keep the article just for once actually argue for how he passes any of these criteria, and come with sources, and maybe even add that information on his Wikipedia article, so that it would be evident by reading his article that he indeed is notable? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I already answered that, his research was so good they decided to let him write textbooks which are used at major universities, how many professors can say that? TomCat4680 (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. Quite a lot, since it's not mentioned which these "major universities" are. Professors quite often write their own textbooks, which automatically gives you one "major university". 2. Even if his textbooks are used at major universities, that does not mean he fulfills ANY of the above criteria. So no, you haven't answered that. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

His books prove he passes point #4 which states The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. Obviously the specific book names and schools that use them should be added, however. TomCat4680 (talk) 08:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * How does the fact that he has written a whole bunch of books prove he has had a significant impact? I'm getting really tired of asking the question "how" all the time. It's getting pretty darn obvious nobody can answer. You are not notable because you are a professor. You are not notable because you written books. If you where, these things would be listed as criteria for notability, and they are not. I also note that don't answer how he fulfills 1, 3, 5 and 7, which you claimed he fulfilled. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're tired of asking, why don't you stop asking? You made your point tenfold, now move on with your life. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I continue asking, because I get no answers, but people continue to make the claim. There is no reason to be bitter just because you were wrong. And learn to indent. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ¨¨ victor  falk  06:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break

 * Keep I agree, he passes the requirements. I also notice that Google search, when you add the word professor to the search, shows many articles listed.  Since they aren't in English, I can't really judge them, but that might add to his notability.    D r e a m Focus  08:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again: *How* does he pass the requirements? I can judge them and they don't support the claims that he passes the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So you speak Swedish? If so, why don't you translate the bibliography section? TomCat4680 (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The books are in Swedish and have Swedish titles, so I'm not sure what there is to translate. Also, the discussion here is about his notability. There has been a lot of discussion, sometimes even really heated about the subject, yet nobody has been able to come up with any support for his notability. I think the article should be deleted. Why would I work on it? My question is instead: Why don't you add to his article in a way that shows that he is notable? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want to expand articles why did you even join Wiki? If you just want to argue there's dozens of other sites for that purpose. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. Learn to indent, it's getting really annoying. 2. I want to expand articles, but I have no desire to expand things that should be deleted, and I can't find anything to expand this article with in the first place. 3. What good arguments for notability that was. Not. Can we keep to the topic? If you have sources showing his notability, add them. I have looked, I can find *none*. I can not find *anything* that makes him fulfill WP:ACADEMIC. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I already added several of his books. Obviously it proves he's an expert in his field. That's why the media constantly asks him to contribute to discussions on the topic, they value his opinion and think he adds a lot to the programs/articles, etc. TomCat4680 (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Being an "Expert" is not listed as something that fulfills notability in WP:ACADEMIC, clearly we are now finally moving towards consensus that he doesn't fulfill those criteria, which is about time. Then is the question if he fulfills notability in some other way. Apparently you think being an "expert" is enough. I'm not an expert (hehe) on notability guidelines, and couldn't find anything conclusive on that subject. Of his publications (they are not all books in any general meaning, many are research publications) few are available for purchase as of today. They are indeed published by the type of published that publish course literature, but that doesn't mean they are used as course literature by any one except Tommy Möller himself. They *may* be, but then please provide sources for this. I can't find any. I can only find one reference to one of his books being used at any notable university outside Stockholm, and that's the university in Uppsala, which is a major university by Swedish standards. I don't know if it's major by international standards. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as a FTR - it is considered a major university by international standards with world rankings of around #75 in the most important university rankings (but that doesn't automatically mean that all authors of textbooks used there are notable people. I teach at UU, and I sometimes use textbooks whose authors are definitely not notable.) --bonadea contributions talk 12:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

We're probably having trouble finding sources because he's Swedish. If he were from an English speaking country we'd probably have more hits on the English language search engine we're using. For example I searched for him on Google News but the only thing that came close was an NHL player with a similar name. TomCat4680 (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you have trouble finding sources because there are none. I've looked for them too, remember? --OpenFuture (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no English sources, but there's probably tons of Swedish ones. This article belongs in the Swedish Wiki. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So, you now agree it should be deleted? This discussion is about the English article, not the Swedish one, which already exists. (And no, there are no tons of Swedish sources either). --OpenFuture (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care, but at least I tried to expand the article. Just stop arguing with me. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I also tried to expand the article. Again: I can't find anything to expand with. I don't understand why this seems to raise such an intense debate. And when you claim things that are obviously wrong, you'll have to accept that I correct you, and that I ask for support of claims of notability. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay I accept it. Why do you insist on beating a dead horse? I already admitted I was wrong. Don't you have anything better to do? TomCat4680 (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Who is arguing? All I did was ask you for references supporting your claim of notability. When you seemed to back down I asked if you conceded that the article should be deleted, and then you told me to stop arguing. It was a question. Geeez. What is it with Tommy Möller that makes people so stingy? It's it the heave-metal umlaut? What? :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not changing my keep. I think he meets the guideline still. TomCat4680 (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, fine. Can you then please explain how he meets the guidelines? Because in your attempts so far you have failed to do so. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I went through and added several books. I stopped at page 4 of the Google Books search but the rest should be added (and all of their titles translated if anyone here speaks Swedish). TomCat4680 (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break

 * Comment He is acknowledged as a political commentator; he writes op-eds for Dagens Nyheter and participated in Almedalen Week last year, chairing a seminar about political lobbyism as well as being on a panel with Margot Wallström. I'm pretty sure notability is independent of language and nationality (please provide me with a relevant policy/guideline if I'm wrong). --bonadea contributions talk 12:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Notability is definitively independent of language and notability. He clearly does not meet WP:ACADEMIC in any language. He does indeed get quoted in articles, at least in SvD and Expressen. He is clearly on these newspapers lists of people to call if you want to have a name to quote in the article. I asked there if that's enough to be called "notable", but no-one answered. He also have had several debate articles in Dagens Nyheter, is that notable? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes being included in the country's largest newspaper Dagens Nyheter (basically the Swedish USA Today) is notable. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Included"? You mean having an article on the debate-page of DN? Is that really notable? We better start pages about Annika Taesler, Björn Johnson, Christian Clausen, Lena Ag and Peje Emilsson. And that's just the last week or two, and I ignored those articles signed by three or more people. :) No, maybe you meant something else. Are there any other set of rules for notability except WP:Academic? I'm really trying to find some reason to view this guy as notable so we can end this silly discussion, you need to help me here. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although slender GS cites he appears to have inpact as a political commentator. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Note to closing admin: Please ignore the people who state that he passes multiple portions of ACADEMIC. He does not. I am not sure whether they are intentionally "fudging" the truth or what, but if you take a look at ACADEMIC, he passes none of them. As AFD is not a majority vote, this article should be deleted unless someone can source it to non-trivial mentions in reliable, secondary sources. Some have tried to do so. No one has been able to accomplish it. Unit  Anode  12:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Further: it also appears at least one of the "keeps" is blatantly lying about Sweden not having any department heads or named chairs, in order to perpetuate their own view that Moller is notable. Unit  Anode  12:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - articles like this help counter Systemic bias and I am grateful for swedish speakers to help out here. Writing textbooks does qualify 1 and 4. Ref 2 is interesting in that the NYT sought to consult him. TAken together, there is enough to satsify notability for mine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess it's nice to know we have a hardcore inclusionist with regards to BLPs on the Arbcom. Unit  Anode  14:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm...what earth-shattering information is so dangerous in this article? It is sourced now anyways. And FYI I have not been on arbcom for 3 months now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not about what's "dangerous", it's about what's "unsourced." The first "source" only mentions Moller as it relates to Greenberg. Thus, it's not non-trivial. The second "source" is some kind of university profile. Thus, not a secondary source. Unit  Anode  14:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That you write a book used by some universities in some courses does *not* mean you have significant impact on higher education. It has become clear from the above discussion that he does not fulfill ANY of the WP:ACADEMIC criteria. Other criteria has to be found. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Appears to be sufficiently notable for inclusion.--Milowent (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ironholds and Casliber. Nathan  T 17:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Struck per Bishonen's further research below. Nathan  T 13:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest delete. As far as I can see, Tommy Möller doesn't fulfill any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. I'm a native Swedish speaker, but I need to sleep now... it's nighttime in Sweden... and so c-c-cold. [/me crawls gratefully into hibernation igloo and flops.]. I can explain about the criteria and those "major universities" tomorrow, if you like, and if this hasn't been closed. Bishonen | talk 02:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC).
 * 'A prophet is not without honour except in his own country', although characterising this subject as a prophet may be hyperbolic. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC).
 * So, your bluff is called by an actual Swedish speaker, and that's what you come up with?!? Unit  Anode  04:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: I would like to divert this discussion from the issue of notability to that of quality, which I think is an equally important issue in this case. This is an awfully unbalanced article that says nothing about Möller's work, which should be the main raison d'être for such an article. Apparently this article was deleted as an unreferenced article on a living person. I think it should have been allowed to remain deleted. There was nothing in that version of the article that wouldn't have been easily recreated from scratch by someone writing a new article. An article like this should be written by first assembling all relevant sources (and a person who knows Swedish and has access to the appropriate library resources should know how to do this) and then use these for a thoughtfully composed biographical article reflecting a balanced view of Möller's work. This is difficult to do when dealing with a living person, where no obituary or biographical dictionary entry or similar retrospective summary yet exists, but I think it is possible. It is just not possible to do it by desperately scrambling for random Google hits to insert into the page. This is what I think should happen: Delete this now. Just don't let a rather unpleasant discussion such as this of a pretty crappy article create a precedent against any article on the topic. Allow whoever feels like it to work on an article on Möller in a no-indexed user subpage (or on a file on their hard drive) and restart the article when that new version begins to look like it gives a decent, balanced view of Möller as a political scientist. If nobody wants to do this right now, I think the English Wikipedia can survive without an article on Tommy Möller for some time. There is no hurry. I was going to say something about the hierarchy in Swedish academia, which is a bit more complex than the proponents of the "named chair=notable, everybody else=non-notable" school of thought appear to think. But since it seems that Bishonen has promised to do this I will let him/her do this. --Hegvald (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, It took me less than a minute to find dozens of books referencing him/his work and Google scholar nets 163 Ghits including many citations to his work. AfD establishes if the subject reaches GNG and if a good article are possible. Clearly these are both possible. -- Banj e  b oi   07:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: I have to say that I find neither Unitanode's nor OpenFuture's comments helpful in the least. Is this really acceptable behaviour in discussions like this? --Hegvald (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How is it not helpful to point out when people are incorrect? And what is acceptable behavior? Shut up and let incorrect statements pass? This decision needs to be taken on correct information, and we have here repeatedly have people claiming that he fulfills point 5 of WP:ACADEMIC when he does not. Should I just ignore that? I'm only unhelpful, if you want to keep the article no matter if he is notable or not. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break

 * Comment and some translation: OK, I've slept, and checked out the References section. I understand and respect the effort to supply "sources" for the article, but I'm afraid the References section is a sad scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel job. Let me just run through them quickly:
 * Ref 1 is Möller's university profile. It shows that he works at Stockholm University (so do I, what about it?) and is a full professor.
 * Ref 2 is an article about Carl Bildt (Bildt is notable, yes!) which proves (again) that Möller is "a professor of political science at Stockholm University". He's quoted, in passing, as having made a brief comment about Bildt.
 * Ref 3: Parts of a book by Möller are read for a not-high-level course in political science at a small college (Jönköping). Yes, the "University Foundation" stuff is a bit misleading. Colleges like to introduce a whiff of universityhood in their self-description, of course. But compare the Swedish Jönköping page.
 * Ref 4. Parts of another book are read for a fairly modest course at a bona fide major university (Uppsala); in the context, this is something of a find.
 * Ref 5 is the entry in LIBRIS, the Swedish national library database, for Möller's dissertation from 1986. Offering this as a "reference" is embarrassing. You're probably getting tired of me, but my dissertation is in there too, together with every extant Swedish dissertation since... oh, the reign of Gustav Vasa, probably.
 * Ref 6: bona fide reference to Tommy Möller being interviewed on Dagens Eko. This is pretty good!
 * Ref 7: Möller is quoted on the major SVT news Rapport's homepage. That could mean that he had also appeared on Rapport itself. But the trouble with both 6 and 7 is that there is only one comment (in passing) from each of Dagens Eko and Rapport offered in evidence of the large claim that Möller has "acted as political commentator in various Swedish media". This would be a notability claim with some meat to it, if the article offered any evidence (such as a claim from a reputable secondary source) that Möller has been commenting at all frequently, but it doesn't. And I don't believe he has, either. My own anecdotal experience isn't relevant here, of course, but I'll just mention that as a Swedish resident, I listen to/watch Dagens Eko and Rapport pretty much every day, and I haven't seen or heard Tommy Möller above two or three times altogether.
 * Ref 8, Sveriges Radios election night coverage in 2006. Möller is not part of the major "valvaka", which is covered by the major channel P1; instead, he's mentioned with reference to local coverage on P4. No offense, but that's a whole different kettle of fish, and the conclusion drawn from it in the article, while formally correct, is highly misleading.
 * Ref 9: Möller gave the introductory speech at a two-hour seminar about the role of lobbyism in a democracy. Notable?
 * Ref 10: Möller took part in a 90-minute seminar about political leadership. Neither of the two seminars at 9 and 10 appear to have been covered by any media.
 * Ref 11: Möller's university profile (again). Not what I'd call a homepage, but it has a list of his publications—an impressive list, at least number-wise. I don't want to demean this academic productivity in any way, but, well, it is academic. Not the kind of books that have an impact on public debate.


 * How are those links "sources", anyway? Few of them are actually used for the article.

I cover the "used as textbooks at major universities" claim above; it turns out to mean part of a book, at one course, at one major university (plus another one at a modest college). As for the "department head or named chair" business in WP:ACADEMIC, however, that's different, and speaks, if anything, in favor of Möller's possible notability. Those concepts are sort of irrelevant to it. Full professors generally take turns to act as department head, which is an administrative position, and not a coveted one. [/bishonen remembers with a shiver the time she was inveigled into acting as head of her department for a couple of years. Brrr.] Research positions are what people want, and highly active researchers, as Möller clearly is, may well manage to avoid the headship altogether. Named chairs, on the other hand, are very rare, so, for Swedish academics, one of those shouldn't be required for notability.

Can notability be acquired by professors at all, then? Not qua professors, IMO. Not by professor-ing away. But, say, by being in a lot of high-profile conflicts. (I have no reason whatever to suppose Möller is that.) Or by being given a professorship because they were already notable on the (in this case) political arena. A good example of a notable full professor is Leif G.W. Persson. Now Persson really is known for frequently commenting on stuff in the media, as well as for various other things.

To recapitulate: Möller is a very respectable and, as appears from the list of his publications, very diligent professor of Political Science. I'm not at all surprised that Google Scholar gets lots of hits for him. But that's the academic publishing track; it's only tenuously related to public debate in Sweden. Möller is not...how shall I put this...not a well-known political commentator. Not often in the media. He's by no means someone in the public eye, or generally quoted. (Though Thomas Möller, formerly head of Swedish Hell's Angels, is; be careful you don't get the two mixed up!) OpenFuture makes a good point about the debate-page of Dagens Nyheter; that's not a...uh... not a hotspot nowadays. The page has increasingly become the reserve of politicians and academics; it was at one time widely read, but, well, not so much now. It's putting it politely to state that being published there doesn't confer or imply notabilty.

I agree with Hegvald that the article seems to have been produced back-to-front. It's unbalanced; it's very short; conclusions drawn from its "sources" are consistently inflated. It would have been a lot more interesting, at least, (though still hardly notable) to focus on what is unusual about Möller. On what makes viewers swallow their coffee the wrong way when he makes an appearance on Rapport. And that is his, for professors of Political Science, unusual conservatism, readily apparent (at least to a Swede) from his book titles. And I've saved the best for a note to end on: what is absolutely freakishly rare for an academic in Möller's position is his support of the Monarchy, and the comments he has made in that context. That's mentioned in the article, but I'm not sure you guys see the significance. A bit more emphasis on it would turn this article into a perpetual bitter edit war, wouldn't that be fun? But I don't think it makes him notable, for all that. Bishonen | talk 11:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC). Leif


 * Poor sourcing and sources misapplied - often to prevent deletion (hint hint) does not equate that a subject lacks notability. Only that the article requires clean-up which remains not a reason to delete. Improving article context, structure, spelling out notability, improving sourcing, these are all considered regular editing. We do this every day on thousands of articles. A case can be made in some cases that it's better to start over but frankly even that is not a deletion but an overhaul.  -- Banj e  b oi   11:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is true. But the problem here is that the poor sourcing is simply an effect of lack of sources. Let me remind you again: I *have* been looking. It said that his books was used as textbooks on many major universities. The truth is I could find that it was used on two minor courses in Uppsala, and one other minor university. It's not poorly sourced because nobody has bothered, or just slapped bad sources i there to make it looked sourced. It's poorly sourced, because there are no sources. And to me, that indicates that he probably isn't notable.
 * Let's recap:
 * He does clearly not fulfill WP:ACADEMIC, he has had no significant impact, and does not have a named chair, etc. Possibly the amount of references can be notable, I don't know, somebody needs to find comparisons with other people who are deemed notable.
 * Appearing on the debate page of Dagens Nyheter is not notable in an international perspective.
 * Getting called up to quote on random events in politics doesn't seem notable to me. Everyone else has been silent on the issue.
 * Being one expert on an election program doesn't seem notable to me, further discussion on that could be helpful.
 * He is possibly notable by being the only Swedish political sciences professor who is a monarchist. But that seems like a longshot.
 * Clearly what we need to concentrate on here is if we can find a reason to say that he is notable on the basis of him being referenced, called to quote things, or being a conservative. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Likely he meets GNG whether a specific guideline is also met. Google News also yeilds an impressive amount of hits that will have to be sorted to suss which are relevant to this article and likely this article will require those willing to translate numerous sources as well. -- Banj e  b oi   12:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of those hits are for another Tommy Möller. 'Professor "Tommy Möller"' yields 43 hits, which is less than two political scientists without Wikipedia pages who's blogs I read: Fredrik Segerfeldt (75) and Andreas Bergh (258) (neither are professors). Heck, *I* have been quoted by the New York times, and get three hits. :) Maybe he does meet GNG, but there has been a notable lack of arguments for that. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 99 news ghits, without the references to coach Tommy Moller-Nielsen. Many sources don't he's a professor, or use terms like statsvetenskapproffessor. Goodle does not understand compoundwordmaking. walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 11:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Those who seem to know most about the subject seem to think it not notable, and I am swayed by bishonen's analysis. If it is kept I would think that a sourced version of this stub would be better than the current article, given the concerns that bishonen and others have expressed about the way in which the sources are being used. Quantpole (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On the named chair business (another TL;DR comment): It seems to be necessary to get this out of the way. As I have tried to point out on the talk page, possession of a "named chair" is not a useful cut-off point for Swedish academia. There is a cut-off point that could be more useful. Let me explain: Until 1993, most professors at Swedish universities were the possessors of chairs with some degree of continuity (although sometimes re-delimited and redefined between holders). Some of these have a continuity back to the 16th or 17th century, many others at least to the 18th or 19th or early 20th century. Many subjects had only one chair, some had two. Some were "named chairs", because they were established through a private donation. Most were not, as they had been created through a grant from the Crown or Government (until the early 19th century at least, that would usually mean the Monarch or regent personally). In addition, there were positions as heads of major non-university institutes and museums that came with the title of professor. There were personal research chairs (that expired with the retirement of the holder). There were also (and still are) people who were granted the honorary title of professor (professors namn) by the Government. These were all rather exclusive groups. In the 1990s, this system was reformed to something similar to the U.S. system, where a tenured academic can gradually achieve a higher rank. In addition to the existing chairs, the possibility was opened for people possessing the position of lektor (lecturer) to get the title of professor. The previous system would exclude even the most highly accomplished academic from ever becoming a professor once the existing chairs had come into the possession of other academics of roughly the same age or younger. The ambition from the political powers-that-be of the time was probably to erase the difference between the old type of chaired professor (lärostolsprofessor) and the new "promoted professor" (befordrad professor). The old universities have so far resisted this change and held on to their chairs. These old, well-established chairs tend to come with far more resources and time for research (vs. teaching or other duties) and remain coveted even by people who have alrady been "promoted" to professors but who in actuality are just glorified lecturers. As for the Lars Hierta chair and other named chairs at Stockholm University, there is one point that needs to be explained: When Stockholm University was established back in the late 19th century, it was a municipal and partly private venture. It had very limited resources, no government grants. The only way it could possibly get a new professorship was through a private donation. Stockholm University was a högskola until 1962, although of higher status than the current crop of young institutions going by that name (it granted doctorates and employed some brilliant professors, including Nobel laureates and members of the Swedish Academy). Another example: both professorships of Art History at Stockholm University are "named", one after J. A. Berg, a wealthy army officer, and the other after the painter Anders Zorn. I am perfectly willing to argue that every holder of these two chairs has been notable and could find good biographical sources at least for the dead ones. But it would be silly to argue that the two chairs of Art History that exist at Uppsala or the two in Lund are not notable (these chairs all date from the early 20th century when art history established itself as an independent academic discipline), just because they aren't "named", i.e. were established through decisions by the Government rather than through a donation by some random rich guy. So, how does this apply to this case? Well, the question is: does Möller possess a professorial chair (any chair, not specifically a named one) or is he just a "promoted professor"? At least a few years ago he was still a "promoted professor" applying for chaired positions, including (twice) the Lars Hierta chair. The Swedish political science journal Statsvetenskaplig tidskrift is partly available on-line for the period 1998-2006 and has actually published the expert committee evaluations (sakkunnigutlåtanden) of candidates to various chairs. These contain a great deal of information on Möller and the other candidates. See 2001:1, pp. 73 ff (a chair at Umeå University); 2001:2, pp. 138 ff (on the Lars Hierta chair); and 2006:1 (on the Lars Hierta chair again; see pp. 81-110, including a debate between one of the experts and another one of the applicants). There may be more; my search was not exhaustive. They could actually constitute pretty good sources for an article on Möller, among others. I found these yesterday and first thought "how useful!", before realizing how much care and thoughtfulness is needed to use evaluations such as these for writing a biographical article. That is why I concluded that delete-rewrite-repost is a better solution than keeping the article in its current shape or letting it develop by random addition of out-of-context factoids or "criticism" sections (bad enough for historical articles, terrible when dealing with a living person). In conclusion, Möller does not appear to fulfill the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC, unless he has acquired a chair since 2006. On the other hand, there are good, but slightly difficult-to-use, sources out there for anyone who reads Swedish and really wants to write about him. But whoever wants to do that really needs to look at all the material, digest it, then repost a new article and ask a couple of people to take a look at the article and the references. --Hegvald (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * First, thanks for your work on this matter. In your view, how does using these evaluations conform (or not conform) with our policy on original research? It sounds as if they may be primary documents, and that some level of synthesis might be necessary in order to use them well. What are your thoughts about this? Unit  Anode  14:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My point is that they need some understanding of the context where the evaluations were made and comparison with a range of other sources to be "used well", but I don't see how synthesis ("a synthesis of published material to advance a new position") would need to come into it at all. For writing about Möller's work, they would be secondary sources. The only way they would be primary sources would be if someone would want to make a study of the experts who wrote these evaluations and their views of what type of competence or profile a professor of political science needs to have (or something like that). The primary sources for the subject of Tommy Möller would be Möller's own writings. --Hegvald (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can certainly sympathize with your double reaction to using sakkunnigutlåtanden for a bio, Hegvald, from "How useful" to some alarm. I'm kind of appalled by the idea myself. Those evaluations are... well... I don't know how to put it, but they're kind of special (not in a good way). I know I couldn't muster enough tact to use them for anything. Bishonen | talk 17:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC).

arbitrary break

 * Comment. Because of the vast screeds that are being written on this seemingly not terribly important AfD there appear to be deep Swedish cultural currents running here that I do not claim to understand. One editor seems to disapprove of the subject because he has expressed support for the Swedish monarchy. There may be some POV here. Although keeps slightly outnumber deletes at present it could be a No Consensus. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Not really. This isn't a vote, so I'd say if an admin wades through all the arguments, this will be a pretty easy delete. Unit  Anode  23:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are Swedish cultural currents here, I don't understand them either even though I'm Swedish. :) --OpenFuture (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Clear delete despite the best efforts of the WP:ARSeditors, what have we got? A Sweedish professor who comments on Sweedish polics? Huge amount of TLDR research and that's the best? Sorry, this doesn't even assert notability much less establish it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "a frequent political commentator in Swedish media.[3]" <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 19:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Clear keep --NERIUM (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? This isn't a vote, so without a contribution to the discussion by way of rationale, you will probably be ignored.--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability. --NERIUM (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What about it?--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has notability. --NERIUM (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Clear keep: His notability is amply illutstrated by the number of references where he is used as an expert commentator. If that were not enough then his publications list should easily do the trick - some of his books have been published in several (six!) editions - this doesn't happen to books with low notability. I would even go so far as to call the nomination obviously frivolous. ·Maunus· ƛ · 11:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that none of that information was in the article when it was nominated. Thank you for not using obviously false statements about his notability as most people above have. I don't agree about his notability, but at least this is a matter of judgment about how many times you need to be quoted as an expert, and what kind of quotes, so it's ultimately subjective. A note on the editions: It's typical for Swedish university professors to write their own course material, so having many editions doesn't have to be an indication of usage outside his own curriculum. He could just as well update it every year. It should also be noted that the book with six editions is written by Mats Bäck and later updated by Tommy Möller (this is an error in the article, I'll correct it), not that this necessarily makes a difference. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, the article has been improved since nomination - I'll strike my comment about the frivolousness of nomination - the nomination was probably completely legitimate then. But the fact that it has been improved and is now sourced and makes (reasonable) claims to notability might then be a motivation for withdrawing the nomination all together? ·Maunus· ƛ · 13:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's obviously up to the person who nominated the article for deletion, but I still don't agree there has been any convincing arguments for Tommy Möllers notability, so I think withdrawing it before we have a decision is a bad idea, as there is a high risk the discussion appears again. We'd better get a AfD decision from somebody with more experience of notability discussions. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * These references (preprint of article later published in "Party Politics, Vol. 9, No. 3, 369-390 (2003)") []  show that Möller is cited in international contexts (English, Norwegian, Czech and Chinese)when dealing with topics of swedish politics. This book (p. 69) by the swedish research council of political sciences states that "Although the work at Stockholm trails that of Göteborg in the field of electoral studies, Tommy Möller’s work on Swedish elections and political parties, some of it co-authored or co-edited with Sören Holmberg at Göteborg, has been recognized both by academic peers and the public. Möller has also been a frequent commentator on Swedish politics on national television." ·Maunus· ƛ · 17:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The last one is a pretty good source. With the historical chapter (which could undoubtedly be fleshed out from other sources), it would form a good basis for an article on Political science in Sweden. --Hegvald (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * this editorial in a major newspaper describes him as a "framstående" (distinguished, prominent) political scientist. The paper has a similar political alignment as Möller though. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is an embarrassment, to the subject as well as to us. People have evidently been editing it in a desparate effort at dredging up hints of notability from anything they could find. And it shows. "His book [...] is a part of the course literature at some universities in Sweden". OMG. If that's the most interesting thing we can say about him, we'd better say nothing at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That piece of information has obviously been included in order to assert notability when challenged. Using, the fact that it is irrelevant to the article to argue that it should be deleted is putting a catch 22 on those who would try to save it. As I have already said above the fact that his book is used in a a course is not the interesting part - the fact that it has been published in six editions is. And the fact that his works in swedish are referenced in international contexts (english, norwqegian, czech and chinese), and that the swedish ministry of science explicitly states that he has had a broad impact in science and as a political commentator.·Maunus· ƛ · 07:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, that piece kinda has been inserted for that reason. Although originally it claimed that his textbooks (plural) was used at several major universities. That turned out to be yet another incorrect claim in the effort to assert notability for Möller. When checked, it turns out that his books are used in one or two courses at one major university and one course at a minor one. And that was all I could find. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Keep - has lots of references. References => notability. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Almost an embarrassing riches of sources shown above, and clearly a highly accomplished acadmic. LotLE × talk  23:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no way to read the lengthy discussion of these "sources" by the actual Swedish-speakers, and still make the statement you make here. Unit  Anode  23:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Bishonen, but you may be reading too much into what I wrote. Basically I agree with what Fut.Perf. said above: the article is an embarrassment (for Wikipedia and the subject, but the latter is a far worse problem). But I also think that the sources could be used to write about Möller. (Maunus has also presented an additional source of some value.) But because these sources are difficult to use (one needs to tread carefully in order not to overrepresent their bias in the article), I would just prefer to see someone doing it in a way that won't be an even worse embarrassment before the page gets re-introduced as an actual article. --Hegvald (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's a convincing array of sources demonstrating notability shown above, and I don't find the counter arguments compelling. Rebecca (talk) 05:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The "array of sources" is far from "demonstrating notability" if you take a look at what the people who actually speak Swedish have to say. Unit  Anode  18:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that I have since presented sources in English and three other languages beside swerdish - I don't think that should be a problem.·Maunus· ƛ ·


 * Delete per Future Perfect at Sunrise.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 07:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep As a frequent political commentator in the media looks like passes #7 of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding the poor quality that a couple of editors speak about. Poor quality is emphatically 'not' a reason for deletion. It is a reason to sofixit and WP:IMPROVE the article. If it is really unsalvageable, the thing to do is to WP:STUBIFY in or order to WP:PRESERVE the information and rewrite the article. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 10:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If an article is in such pathetically bad shape that there's no real possibility of using even the bare bones of it to start fixing it (and this one certainly qualifies), then deletion is a valid option. We don't have to keep barely notable -- and irredeemably shitty -- articles around, just because of SOFIXIT. Unit  Anode  16:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The article as it stands still only tells us he is a professor at Stockholm University, that he sometimes is quoted in media, that he supported the King after his Tsunami-speech (well who didn't, really ;) ) and list the books he wrote. OK. *shrugs*. There is still little discussion of what he did that is actually notable. If his research has had significant impact, *what* is that impact? I asked that already the 26th, but there has been no answer. If he has had significant impact outside academia, ie as a political commentator, what is that impact? If the article could explain this, and thereby the article could explain *why* Tommy Möller is notable, then this would be an open and shut case for my part. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2010 (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.