Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kresten Bjerg

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kresten Bjerg

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

Non-notable academic, does not meet any one of the nine criteria at WP:NACADEMICS. His highest Scholar citation score is 12, counter-balanced by a significant number of zeroes. This was (and indeed still is) a draft, Draft:Kresten Bjerg; the WP:COI editor seems to have become impatient with the AfC process and sent it out to try its chances in the big bad world. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG and doesn't appear to meet any of the 9 Specific criteria notes at WP:Notability (academics) Theroadislong (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He has written in some major psychology journals (for example scandinavian psychology journal and futuriblerne, the danish psychologists associations journal), he has written a textbook in personality psychology that is used by danish universities, and he was one of the first people to start talking about "domestic psychology", his research has most certainly afflicted the way psychologists today talk about it. He has also won copenhagen university's gold medal in psychology. Magnus bjerg (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And about his scholar citations, although he was a pioneer in the use of computers he was mostly active at a time where the internet was not the place you published your material. Magnus bjerg (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is the job of academics to write papers. That does not make them notable. He may be "one of the first" to discuss "domestic psychology", but he appears to be "one of the only" as it is not an idea that seems to have found any traction. None of the criteria of WP:NPROF appear to be met. At the AfC Draft version you were asked to identify how he meets those criteria and you cited an award given by his employer.
  - If you can provide evidence other than your word that his book is a widely-used text (and not merely used at the Danish colleges he is affiliated with), then you may have something. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can't Wikipedia give new articles time to grow? Must Wikipedia run off every new editor? Is there some, "Deletionist's Live Longer" motto somewhere that I've somehow missed? --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 17:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @MurderByDeadcopy: The editor WAS allowed time to let the article grow in the proper place for not really articles, Draftspace. The editor decided to ignore the advice given there that the article was not ready for main space and recreated it in mainspace. Don't blame "deletionsts" for issues caused by headstrong COI editors not wiling to listen to advice. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you believe I'm referring to this one particular case, well, I'm not. I've seen it happen time and time again. The fact that Wikipedia now requires completed articles written by one write is counter to how Wikipedia first began. It also enforces the concept of ownership of said article. If you want to talk about COI, well I believe that has become highly misused here on Wikipedia, since from what I've seen according to Wikipedia, editor's should only write on things they know nothing about. But the first rule of writing is, write what you know! I've also seen draft article's get repeatedly denied until the original creator just gives up and leaves Wikipedia, then suddenly after their gone the article gets created. Not to mention that oftentimes those editors who deny drafts are some of the most gung-ho deletionists on Wikipedia. Also, my complaint here isn't about whether I believe Wikipedia should save this article, just that articles should be given time to grow with multiple editors working on the article. (FYI - I think your name here is awesome!) --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 18:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - - @MurderByDeadcopy: so.... your rant on this page was completely inappropriate venue for your rant. and yet you rant on. People who fetishize getting bigger over quality seem not to learn that such a focus leads to bad results for your reputation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        No, my rant (?) is completely appropriate here. It's an article that spent a day live on Wikipedia before getting AfD'ed. Larry Sanger said I could write a paragraph about a topic and other editors would come along to flesh out that article. Now, individual editors are required to write huge completed articles all by themselves. If Wikipedia wants it that way, then Wikipedia should allow editors to sign their article and lock it down so that other editors cannot edit that article, but instead make suggestions on the talk page. And no Wikipedia wasn't started because of quality, Wikipedia was always a quantity. Nupedia was about quality. (Also, I've taken to commenting on AfD's mainly because I have deletionist who follow me just to vote the opposite of me! Sometimes they vote anyway, so it's only a small deterrent.) --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 17:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I suppose you can keep ranting, if you want, but when you rant in backwaters that have no chance of actually changing processes or procedures, I bet you can guess how effective your ranting will be. And when the basis of you rant is incorrect, don't complain when no one takes your rant seriously. The article did not "spend one day" live before getting hauled to AFD - it spent at least a week in DRAFT space with experienced editors telling the creator that it was not ready for live space. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Hm... I must have struck a nerve since you are not refuting any of my points (except perhaps that one point about when the article was created) and that one point that you seem insistent on drawing out is still pretty petty since I'd say most/all editors will not touch an article when it's in draft format until the original creator has given up on said article or asked other editors for help. It is, however, obvious, to me, that this conversation is going nowhere so I'll let you have the last word here. Have a nice day! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 19:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - There isn't any rule that you need to start an article as a draft. I added the article to main space when i thought it was ready for it. The advice i got was that if he had written in some major psychology journals, or if he'd held a chair at a widely recognized institution, he might be notable; and what did i do? I added refs to major psychology journals and wrote about his IFIP chair. I did exactly as i was advised.Magnus bjerg (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Magnus bjerg, you're right that there isn't any rule; however, the draft space was created to allow inexperienced editors to learn what makes an acceptable Wikipedia article without risk of immediate deletion of their work. The draft is now gone, so it's hard to be sure: however, it's my recollection that you had received a mass of advice from many different editors, and had chosen to ignore or dispute much of it; you did not, I'm afraid, do what you were advised or indeed anything like it.

On academic notability: we pay no attention to how many articles an academic has published, though we do look at which journals those articles were published by; but what makes the difference is the degree of importance attached to those articles by other academics, and that is measured by the number of citations. While some very obscure journals from the early part of the last century may not have been digitised, the vast bulk of recent academic literature is electronically searchable; that makes it easy for Google to establish how many times a certain article by Kresten Berg has been included in the reference section of someone else's published work. In several cases that number appears to be zero: he wrote the article and published it, but the academic community did not find it worthy of interest. That doesn't mean that he was not an interesting or inventive person; but it does mean that he should not have an article in Wikipedia. I'm not sure that anyone has explained to you what we mean by conflict of interest, so I've left a note on your talk-page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines, WP:BASIC and WP:NPROF. References are to material written by him not about him. His work does not seem to be considered significant by his peers, GScholar reports citation rates in the single and low double digits for his works in a field where much higher citation rates are the norm for significant works. There may be press on him in Danish but a quick search on google.dk did not turn up anything I could identify using machine translation. Jbh ^Talk 22:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:PROF.It's not a question merely of the article being incomplete, but that the data indicated by the article about him does not show academic notability , and until his work becomes much better known, there is no way in which addition editing o the article would improve it. We do not delete articles because they are incomplete. A one-sentence referenced stub on an academic showing they meet the specific notability requirement will and should be kept; if they do, it will be possible to expand the article. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 30 November 2015 (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.