Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jostein Saether

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 of the debate was keep. Shanel 02:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jostein Saether

This author has only published two books, and only has 481 Google results. The proposed deletion tag was removed, so I guess it comes here --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I could only find 1 book, but even that is good enough for me. apparently a notable new age author, books are currently available for sale. Why did you nominate this guy - it appears you are not voting for deletion. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 01:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, well, its already assumed that I'm voting the article for deletion as I've nominated the article on AfD. Also, the book that he has written ranks only #661,217 on Amazon --TBC

^{??? ??? ???} 01:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon may or may not be the New Age retailer of choice. E.g. lotsa notable Jewish books sell terribly on Amazon - b/c Jewish people buy them in specialty stores - same could be here. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 02:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, overall I'm still not sure if having one or two books published with questionable notibility makes the author notable enough for Wikipedia. --TBC

^{??? ??? ???} 02:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, per WP:BIO. PJM 02:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn Midgley 02:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep seems notable enough. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per t.c.r. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 03:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per PJM. I'm willing to bet that the book has a distribution of at least 5000. Hbackman 04:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now per PJM and Hbackman, but tag for importance. -- BrownHairedGirl 04:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep ~Linuxerist L / T 07:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very probably fails WP:BIO Robin Johnson 10:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep --Ter e nc e Ong 10:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Jostein Sæther and redirect. Eivind ^t ^@^c 11:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I guess if he's published by a non-vanity press, that's good enough for me. Lankiveil 11:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Very weak keep as per the majority of votes above. Seems to be somewhat notable. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 11:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked the books on Amazon - I think that one is a translation of the other. Neither has any appreciable sales rank, and neither is published by a major publishing house. He scores only about one tenth the number of Ghits that I do, and I am my own benchmark for non-notability. I call WP:HOLE. Just zis Guy you know? 16:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, per JzG. --kingboyk 17:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If not we'll have to let Just zis Guy have a page!!!! Marcus22 20:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I say "Eep!" here? Just zis Guy you know? 16:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PJM and WP:AFDP --David.Mestel 15:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as per JzG, just barely not notable enough to me. I mean, by the plaque off my teeth. Lord Bob 22:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Published author. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book popular enough to have a lot of listing in on the Amazon used books page.Seano1 01:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal keep. This author is not one whom I would consider to be directly "notable" in himself alone; however it is clear looking through InfoTrac and on Google that his work has been referred to by others (albeit to a comparatively minor degree). In my own personal opinion, I wouldn't say he's worthy of inclusion in any encyclopaedia due to lack of substantial merit on his part, but of course since Wikipedia is meant to be a "sum of human knowledge" we don't seem to ignore people who have some demonstrable level of following in the world at large simply because of their academic insignificance. Admittedly, if Wikipedia were my encyclopaedia, such articles as this would be deleted post-haste, but mercifully for the world this is not the case. Thus it seems he is notable enough to warrant an article given usual Wikipedia editorial procedure. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep his second book can be found here [1] (found on Google Scholar). His writings may not be enough on their own for notability as an author, but he is also an academic, with verifiable contributions. Mangojuice 19:21, 23 March 2006 (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.