Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bent Flyvbjerg

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. A promotional tone used in an article for a notable subject should be fixed editorially. WP:TNT is an essay about an editorial approach to rewriting a page about a topic that meets our notability guidelines. TNT is a relevant argument in a content dispute, but not a reason to use administrative tools. As for WP:SK3, a faulty nomination cannot be used to speedy-close an AfD once a valid deletion argument has been entered. Regardless, an inaccurate assessment of sources vis-à-vis GNG is not the same as "No accurate deletion rationale". SK3 aims to close AfDs with nominations such as, "We don't need a page about a geographer", not to summarily reject poor or lazy assessment of sources. Owen× ☎ 14:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Bent Flyvbjerg

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

GNG - non-notable researcher lacks significant coverage, in both reliable and non-reliable sources. Article seems autobiographical, with 20/25 sources being written by the subject. Couruu (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. Sources do not establish notability. Also note that this person is the subject of an extensive promotional campaign of citespam and other articles (see Making Social Science Matter on his book). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sonderbro/Archive for more info on the socks, including the creator of the biographical article. - MrOllie (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep. Although this article needs significant alteration and removal of unreliable sources in places, the subject is the Villum Kann Rasmussen Professor, a named professorship, at IT University of Copenhagen. This seems to me to meet C5 of WP:NPROF, which is sufficient to establish notability. Again, the article needs substantial editing but the subject appears to be notable. Qflib (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[]
I have tidied up the article a bit. Qflib (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Philosophy, Economics, Geography, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Not to Delete The article should not be removed as the citations are available. Wikicontriiiiibute (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC) — Wikicontriiiiibute (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. []

Speedy keep WP:SK3 totally faulty nomination fails to even consider the appropriate notability criterion, WP:PROF, which is independent of GNG. Massive citation counts give him an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1 and named professorships at two universities pass #C5. He also appears to pass WP:AUTHOR with multiple published reviews of his books. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[]
I'm proposing a WP:TNT in that case then. I missed PROF, and thank you for pointing it out - but given the sockpuppet's intense involvement in the article's current state, the extreme citespam, promotional tone, and general poor quality of the article, the article needs nuking from orbit and rebuilding by a SME. Couruu (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[]
WP:DINC. TNT is only for cases where there is nothing salvageable, far from the case here. The detailed descriptions of what his work is about lack independent sources and should be properly sourced or trimmed but otherwise the article looks factual and uncontroversial to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete I don't see how he's notable under WP:GNG, nor do I believe there should be an exception for academics. It's also promotional - it's not really an encyclopedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[]
Your failure to abide by established Wikipedia's guidelines and consensus is nobody's problem but your own, and is misplaced here, where to have any weight arguments should be based on those things and not on personal opinion. But, to be explicit: there are many published works that go in depth into his work (in particular the book reviews I alluded to above). Or are WP:BEFORE and WP:DINC, and the existence of sources beyond what is already in the article, another part of the established guidelines and consensus that you reject? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[]
Because the article is horribly promotional and I agree with the citespam comment. He probably does pass WP:NAUTHOR on a second look, but WP:TNT should apply. SportingFlyer T·C 07:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Also, being able to have articles on cricketers who appeared in any first class match were once Wikipedia's established guidelines and consensus. Consensus can change. SportingFlyer T·C 07:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: In addition to the clear WP:NPROF pass through both citations (80,000 citations, including twelve over 1,000 and one over 20,000) and holding a named chair, there is also a good argument for an WP:NAUTHOR pass as a brief spot-check returned a number of reviews for his books. Academics generally do not receive coverage in the same way as celebrities and politicians, but (especially for those like this, who are at the absolute top of their field) are mission critical for us to cover. Curbon7 (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep Meets WP:PROF as argued above, and with three books (one co-authored) that are each widely reviewed enough to meet WP:NBOOK individually, WP:AUTHOR is satisfied as well. One tap of the delete key removed the promotionalism, so WP:TNT is no longer a concern. I did some trimming on the articles about the books as well. XOR'easter (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[]
Nice edits, I followed up with a few tweaks as well. Qflib (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep per arguments of David Eppstein and XOR'easter, who has done an excellent rough cut on the worst of the cruft. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep. Clearly satisfies WP:NACADEMIC #5 at least twice over. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2024 (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.