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. → Call me Hahc21 04:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Olav Hammer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Effectively unreferenced BLP of an author. No secondary sources found to indicate notability of the author nor his publications. Does not meet any of the criteria at WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. Tgeairn (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Executive editor of the journal Numen (WP:PROF #8). His work seems pretty widely referenced in books related to epistemology and New Age religions. I'll see if I can add some of those in later. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 15:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Being editor-in-chief of a notable journal satisfies WP:PROF. Of course, that moves the question to whether Numen is notable, but I just checked its homepage and see enough to satisfy WP:NJournals (will update the Numen article later). --Randykitty (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2014 (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.