Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnfinn Kjelland

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 delete. While the professor may be notable in the regional context of his works (all arguments that they are in Norwegian aside), it is accepted amongst the academic community that they are to publish research and work. As such, his publications and the article do not altogether match WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Teke^(talk) 06:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arnfinn Kjelland

Prod expired. Prod rationale was "Not notable, his publications are in norwegian only, and are local history books for 4 Norwegian muncipalities". Prod contested on article talk page. Contested, even if not removed, is enough reason to bump to AFD. My opinion is that the language of publication is totally irrelevant. Some local historians are notable, some aren't. I lean to a weak keep myself. I'd like to see more sources to demonstrate meeting WP:BIO or WP:BOOK; so count this as a technical nomination, and I reserve the right to opine later. GRBerry 15:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—This article was added during my Wiki-youth, and now that I’ve spent some time amongst the AfD pages and reviewing new articles, I probably would not add it again until a couple more years have gone by and standards have evolved; I’d have realized it was open to discussion as GRBerry notes. None-the-less, “all my children are good-looking” so here is the case for keeping:

I (the original author) believe that Arnfinn Kjelland, although a relatively minor figure, as a regional historian does meet the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline: “the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor (based on the U.S. practice of calling all full-time academics professors), they can and should be included.”
I first encountered Kjelland’s work while trying to develop material for the article on Odelsrett, an article in which he is quoted. Since I’d quoted him and liked his insight, a link seemed appropriate.
I live halfway around the world from Mr. Kjelland and do not know Mr. Kjelland. I’ve have only exchanged one email with him asking if he would mind if I added this article; he cautiously agreed based on reservations that he had whether local historians were sufficiently noteworthy. I did not write it or intend it as a “puff piece” and try to avoid writing promotional material. Whatever it is, I do not believe it is a vanity article.
This Arnfinn Kjelland article was one of my early contributions and I concede that the article will never have the merit that the article on Vidkun Quisling or Winston Churchill will. And it is hardly an exceptional bit of prose.
I have included the "regional history phenomena" in Scandinavia on my To Do List for later research since it turns out there are quite a number of publications along those lines. But that addition to Wikipedia is for later.
I do believe that the {{prod}}er/nominator is acting in good faith in proposing deletion of this article on his countryman. Even though I abused him mightily, he responded civilly and intelligently. I rather liked his insights and regret having not been gentler.
And if you’ll allow me to indulge in an argument which borders on casuistry, I do believe that Wikipedia has rather variable standards of notability. Arnfinn Kjelland has certainly made a more notable contribution to the world than much of the pop culture that Wikipedia has captured (if you don’t want to pick on musical groups then consider porn stars, who are rather well represented).
I did not remove the {{prod}} tags and probably could have without contest (but I don’t from articles I originate), so I leave it in your able collective hands and intellect to adjudicate this AfD.

Let the discussion begin - Williamborg (Bill) 02:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete The standards for college professors are not entirely arbitrary, but do take account of what the is work. A set of descriptive books of local history--or any similar region in any country in any language--is not a major academic contribution. If he should come to work on a broader scale, or make insights recognized as significant even on a small region, add it again. DGG 07:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 02:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete article makes no claim of notability, and no apparent grounds for making one. Pete.Hurd 02:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I tried to find a CV which would list awards. Found no mention of awards. I enlisted 2 of my swedish buddies to help me and they found nothing. There is no way the subject comes close to WP:BIO or WP:PROF if he hasn't recieved recognition. --Quirex 21:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - the sources confirm that he an associate professor. I don't in any way dispute that he holds the rank of major in the reserve army. What I don't really understand is why this suggests notability. His books have been published, but aren't very widely known. Accordingly, I would suggest this doesn't pass WP:BIO or WP:PROF... Addhoc 16:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No claim to notability. worldcat shows his list of books is only the six listed on the article, and google scholar lists 0. I dont doubt for a moment that there are scholarly articles in journals not listed by google scholar, but I cant see evidence of notability. John Vandenberg 06:30, 25 January 2007 (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.