Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thore Langfeldt

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. Mgm|^(talk) 10:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thore Langfeldt

There's no indication of any notability. The association he joint-founded renders 5 Google hits, so I doubt that makes him notable Scott Mac (Doc) 23:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep on the basis of his three books. He's a Norwegian sexologist. I wouldn't necessarily stop at Google. Reviews will probably be found in Norwegian sources. DGG (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Your "probably" is a practically unverifiable assertion.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 01:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This Norwegian newssearch shows that Lanfeldt has been cited almost 300 times in Norwegian media since 2004. A google search for the Norwegian name of the organization he according to the article joint-founded renders much more hits. I have not investigated the quality of the hits. Rettetast (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF, as suggested by this Google Scholar search, and the fact that the subject's most widely held book in libraries, Barn och sexualitet, is currently in less than 5 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. However, I think he passes WP:BIO based on the results of this Google News search.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WorldCat is irrelevant for books in Norwegian. it isn;t actually worldwide. its 95% US and canada. I doubt it contains more than a very few Scandinavian libraries at all, and those only the most important ones. DGG (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The English WP is the main/global WP, so notability should be verifiable through international sources, such as WorldCat. I do not think we'll find many perfect sources that can be used in AfD discussions. Google News is somewhat flawed, but is an international source that is easily available to all in an AfD discussion.--Eric Yurken (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's true that En:WP is the global WP. After that I don't follow your logic. Punkmorten (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm a little uncomfortable with how closely some of the text in the article matches the results of running Google translate on this bio of him on Aftenposten, bad grammar and all. In general I agree with Eric Yurken — he does not seem to pass WP:PROF but he does seem to pass WP:BIO — but if we are to have an article on him, we should have an article that at least one human has worked on. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and clean up) per Eric Yurken. Also, WP clearly doesn't have enough Norwegian sexologist articles... Rd232 ^talk 02:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.