Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Strandell

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. Michig (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Strandell[edit]

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

I do not believe that the subject is notable per WP:NACADEMIC Enwebb (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nominator, does not appear to satisfy academic notability. Also, most of the references are his own works. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, per WP:NACADEMIC. Would the subject not fulfill points 1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. [1] and 4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions, as cited in article - and as mentioned in the page of relationship anarchy. Subject is in relatively new field and is an active contributor, organized courses and continues development. Would meeting one of the criteria suffice as stated in WP:NACAMEDIC?

Chimneydebeauvoir (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chimneydebeauvoir. Your first link demonstrates exactly the opposite, I'm afraid: i.e. the low number of citations indicates that his research has not yet has a significant impact. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not yet notable -- insufficient publicatios to meet WP:PRF. DGG ( talk ) 09:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a bit too soon for this prof. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any notes on improvement? Chimneydebeauvoir (talk) 07:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant professor is usually too soon to have accumulated the impact needed to pass WP:PROF and this doesn't seem to be any exception. Single-digit citation counts in his Google scholar profile show that he doesn't pass WP:PROF#C1 and the article makes no case for notability through anything but scholarly impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously TOOSOON for this SPA article. This is another growing problem area in WP. Junior faculty are under great pressure to show "impact" by the end of their probationary period, but a WP article (which is certainly a good addition to any tenure dossier) doesn't necessarily fulfill our requirements in this context. Agricola44 (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2018 (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.