Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torstein Eckhoff

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. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - completely non-notable stub.

Failte 18:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep- maybe he is notable. It depends on what he published. Unfortunately I cannot translate Norvegian. An article exists also on no.wp , created on July 2005. Cate 18:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, the AfD was done incorrectly. Now I copy from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fur Affinity and redone the step correctly. Cate 19:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update - The listing is in some semblance of order now. →Bobby← 20:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. An orphan article, no comprehensible notability asserted. The Norwegian article is also sparse and hardly linked, so it would seem we're not overlooking Norwegian standards of notability. -- Shunpiker 02:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The state of an article is not a valid way to determine notability. The Norwegian article may just need cleanup. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Agreed that the poor condition of an article does not, in and of itself, confer non-notability on its subject. But the quality of relevant articles are useful as circumstantial evidence of notability in the absence of other indicators. And unfortunately, there is such an absence. A well-written and well-linked article on the Norwegian site might suggest systemic bias is behind the poor quality and unclear arguments for notability of the English article. But the article on the Norwegian site is also in a problematic state, so the fact of its existence is little argument for keeping the English article. So we're left with an orphaned stub with no coherent claim to notability: Eckhoff was a professor, and he published "Rettskildelære". Which may or may not be a notable publication, but at this point we have to guess. If someone can develop the stub to the point where the claim to notability is clear, I'm happy to change my vote. Barring that, I don't see how delete (with no prejedudice against recreation) is controversial. Even stubs have to assert notability, and the bar should be higher for orphan stubs. -- Shunpiker 19:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Books search cited by Dhartung persuades me that this is indeed a notable figure in Norwegian law. It would be great if some of this research could make it into the article! -- Shunpiker 05:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep his work seems to be important in his field, and for some reason he was the only professor in Norway that had permition to smoke during his lectures... Needs to be updated and expanded by some one with knowledge of Norwegian and law. --E ivind ^t@c 10:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Relister's comment: My opinion is that this is a WP:CSD#A7 speedy, but hey, it's good that we're talking about it, right? Sigh. Sandstein 21:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Norwegian Institute of Human Rights calls the book a "standard work" that has been revised since his death. [1], so there should be more sources, perhaps from the 140 Google Books results on his name. --Dhartung | Talk 21:31, 4 December 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.