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. RL0919 ( talk) 21:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Anne Elisabeth Münster Halvari

Anne Elisabeth Münster Halvari (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)

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

Not proven to pass WP:NPROF, draftified once already. Were I to draftfy it again that would be move warring, hence AfD.

Associate professors are unlikely to meet the notability criteria Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 16:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 16:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 16:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 16:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 16:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 16:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment I notice 146 citations for Motivational predictors of change in oral health at [1] Is that enough? Vexations ( talk) 17:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Vexations the usual expert I turn to in matters such as this is DGG. I have asked them for an unbiased assessment. Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 17:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete :Judging this has some difficulties: A subject field where i don't know the journals or the publication practice, literature primarily in a less used European language, and a subject where practices in different countries can be quite different. Notability under WP:PROF is normally judged on a global basis, but it may be ambiguous here here. Is the comparison with the overall dental literature, or the Norwgian dental literature? There is only one highly cited article, and it has a much more notable coauthor. DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete. One moderately cited paper falls short of WP:NPROF. At first glance, I thought there was some chance of WP:NAUTHOR, but the Books section of the article seems to only lists book chapters, not actual books. No sign of other notability. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 20:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Per nom. The subject fails WP:NACADEMIC. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Per nom. a single paper with 100+ citations, two awards from tooth paste companies that do not seem to be notable. -- hroest 15:59, 10 January 2022 (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.