Espen Gaarder Haug – Endorse deletion. Unanimous agreement that the AfD was closed correctly. If you want to try again, I suggest you take the advice given by DDG and Hobit and write it in draft space, paying careful attention to providing quality sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Espen Gaarder Haug (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) I am concerned about how this deletion was performed, please take a look https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Espen_Gaarder_Haug_(2nd_nomination) again why are wikipedia pages that have been there for more than 10 years suddenly deleted? Do this mean there are many pages on wikipedia that should have been deleted years ago but that still is there? Or is profiles that have been on wikipedia for more than 10 years suddenly less qualified for notability despite they are more known that 10 years ago? It seems quite radom what pages are suddenly deleted or not. The recent deletion of Donna Strickland page show the extreme of this, in that case naturally fixed as it is hard to claim a Nobel prize winner in physics not is notable. Still there are many other pages where editors deletes part or whole of content based on not exactly transparent and scientific methods? For example editors can claim something, that then evidently is pointed to be wrong, this is still ignored. EntropyFormula (talk) 06:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Endorse- there's no other way that discussion could have been closed. It was a near-unanimous discussion, with proper evaluation of the sources. As to why articles older than ten years can get deleted, this can happen for a variety of reasons. First, Wikipedia is a big place. It contains millions of articles and comparatively few editors to curate them all. Articles can go for years without being properly evaluated. Second, as the encyclopedia ages and matures its quality goes up. That means that sometimes articles deemed OK ten years ago don't cut it by today's standards. Reyk _YO! 07:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Endorse A well-participated AfD discussion could only have ended in deletion. SportingFlyer talk 10:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. No other possible outcome for that discussion. Mackensen (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Endorse the outcome of the AfD was obvious. To address the OP's points, the age of the article doesn't make any difference at all to whether it's appropriate to have it around. It was in fact deleted in 2006 so it's not even that these concerns haven't been raised before. Donna Strickland was deleted in 2014 for being a copyright violation, that's not remotely comparable and I assume you're actually referring to the fact a draft article was declined at WP:AFC, which is also not comparable. If you have an actual argument to raise here (e.g. some compelling new argument which wasn't mentioned in the discussion, or a procedural irregularity) then please do so. Hut 8.5 20:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Rewrite and Relist The previous discussion was unfortunately over-personal. But the key argument for WP:PROF was citations, and the finance work has citations. The argument was made in the AfD that the h value was low . This is a spurious argument, because h is insensitive to the presence of a few articles with high citation counts, and a person's influence on their field depends on their most important work, not their average work---and this is all the more true when considering work in 2 different fields, one of which he is clearly not notable (physics), and one where he might be (finance). The rewriting I suggest is to remove the physics material entirely or almost entirely (by almost entirely, I mean something like, he has also published two little-cited papers on theoretical physics(refs) . DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] endorse Closure of the discussion couldn't have gone any other way. I don't agree with DGG that there is a WP:PROF argument here based on what I can find, but sure, someone could take a shot. I'd suggest a draft rather than in article space as I suspect an article would get speedied immediately. Hobit (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Espen Gaarder Haug – Endorse deletion. Unanimous agreement that the AfD was closed correctly. If you want to try again, I suggest you take the advice given by DDG and Hobit and write it in draft space, paying careful attention to providing quality sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I am concerned about how this deletion was performed, please take a look

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Espen_Gaarder_Haug_(2nd_nomination)

again why are wikipedia pages that have been there for more than 10 years suddenly deleted? Do this mean there are many pages on wikipedia that should have been deleted years ago but that still is there? Or is profiles that have been on wikipedia for more than 10 years suddenly less qualified for notability despite they are more known that 10 years ago? It seems quite radom what pages are suddenly deleted or not. The recent deletion of Donna Strickland page show the extreme of this, in that case naturally fixed as it is hard to claim a Nobel prize winner in physics not is notable. Still there are many other pages where editors deletes part or whole of content based on not exactly transparent and scientific methods? For example editors can claim something, that then evidently is pointed to be wrong, this is still ignored. EntropyFormula (talk) 06:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse- there's no other way that discussion could have been closed. It was a near-unanimous discussion, with proper evaluation of the sources. As to why articles older than ten years can get deleted, this can happen for a variety of reasons. First, Wikipedia is a big place. It contains millions of articles and comparatively few editors to curate them all. Articles can go for years without being properly evaluated. Second, as the encyclopedia ages and matures its quality goes up. That means that sometimes articles deemed OK ten years ago don't cut it by today's standards. Reyk _YO! 07:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A well-participated AfD discussion could only have ended in deletion. SportingFlyer talk 10:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No other possible outcome for that discussion. Mackensen (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the outcome of the AfD was obvious. To address the OP's points, the age of the article doesn't make any difference at all to whether it's appropriate to have it around. It was in fact deleted in 2006 so it's not even that these concerns haven't been raised before. Donna Strickland was deleted in 2014 for being a copyright violation, that's not remotely comparable and I assume you're actually referring to the fact a draft article was declined at WP:AFC, which is also not comparable. If you have an actual argument to raise here (e.g. some compelling new argument which wasn't mentioned in the discussion, or a procedural irregularity) then please do so. Hut 8.5 20:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite and Relist The previous discussion was unfortunately over-personal. But the key argument for WP:PROF was citations, and the finance work has citations. The argument was made in the AfD that the h value was low . This is a spurious argument, because h is insensitive to the presence of a few articles with high citation counts, and a person's influence on their field depends on their most important work, not their average work---and this is all the more true when considering work in 2 different fields, one of which he is clearly not notable (physics), and one where he might be (finance). The rewriting I suggest is to remove the physics material entirely or almost entirely (by almost entirely, I mean something like, he has also published two little-cited papers on theoretical physics(refs) . DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
endorse Closure of the discussion couldn't have gone any other way. I don't agree with DGG that there is a WP:PROF argument here based on what I can find, but sure, someone could take a shot. I'd suggest a draft rather than in article space as I suspect an article would get speedied immediately. Hobit (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.