- 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Jannette B. Frandsen
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Jannette B. Frandsen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article clearly written by subject herself. Seems to be clear self-promotion (fails WP:NOT). Also the subject is not notable (fails WP:N). DuckRabbitDuckRabbit ( talk) 12:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete agree with DuckRabbit that this seems to be self promotion. In my opinion WP:PROF is very (too even) liberal, but this certainly does not meet any of the notability criteria. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 12:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- The page refers to her a couple of times as "Prof. Frandsen". Is there any evidence that she is entitled to use this title? Phil Bridger ( talk) 09:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:NPROF#1 with a low citation count even in a medium citation field and an h-index of 9. Two frequently cited papers from 2001 and 2004 do not demonstrate the kine of impact that #1 requires. Then there are all the other issues with the article, lack of sourcing, POV etc. -- hroest 14:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as already said, doesn't meet WP:NPROF. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 10:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Weak delete. The only apparent claim to notability is WP:PROF#C1 and the case for that is borderline. I agree that this appears promotional, and I think that the citation record alone cannot justify the content. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: This is case of Self promotion. TheDreamBoat ( talk) 18:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- 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.