Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Aamodt

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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Aamodt

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

non-notable academic. unreferenced BLP. does not pass wp:scholar notability guidelines. Animatronic Fruit Loop (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom is right, this guy doesn't pass muster as per WP:PROF. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change !vote to Keep per below. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF and WP:N - notability is not established (and it can't be as long as the article remains unsourced). Also WP:BLP requires the immediate removal of all unsourced statements in the biography of a living person, which in this case would result in blanking the article as there are no sources. Were sources found, nothing in the article's current content satisfies WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -clear notable scholar in psychology. Needs expansion Himalayan 11:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch. Thanks. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep based on the books. Applied industrial/organizational psychology has 15 editions published between 1991 and 2004 in English and held by 299 libraries worldwide. That number of editions characteristic of a very widely used textbook. Raw GS or GB counts, though, are not very meaningful & need sorting and interpreting--many of these are actually book jacket blurbs and mere acknowledgements. The articles, though, are not widely cited, according to Web of Science: 9, 7, ,7, 6, 4, 4, 3, 3, =-- GScholar shows more, because some of the citations are in applied or educational journals not in WoS. DGG ( talk ) 12:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. DGG's argument hints at a pass of WP:PROF #4 (substantial impact in higher education), and I think that's confirmed by the number of hits for his name among university course syllabi: [1]. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:51, 10 October 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.