Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrid Gynnild

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. ✗plicit 03:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid Gynnild (edit | 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)

This is just an awfully self-referential article, created by a

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Norway. BD2412 T 01:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non notable. The only sources I can find for this individual are from a university associated with the individual. Nixleovel (talk) 06:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well I wonder. Gynnild seems to be pretty well-published for an academic and I'd have thought easily meets the

  WP:NACADEMIC criteria for notability. The article is a right mess and has been edited by two SPAs but if it's notable it needs tidying not deletion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I am seeing some articles published and some work leading that one journal, but I am not finding any biographical information, independent or not, that we can cite the information in this

  WP:BLP to. There is this which is thin on details. I am on the fence right now. Moritoriko (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an essentially unreferenced BLP, too old to draftify. The external link to her faculty profile sources only her present position, and I suppose if we had evidence of
  WP:AUTHOR and through published reviews of her books, which if they existed should also be usable to replace the unsourced biographical material with content about those books. But all I found was a review of one edited volume (doi:10.18261/ISSN.0805-9535-2018-04-07), not enough for notability that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Well you may be right. I found a review of another edited volume so we haven't exhausted the sources of notability here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.38.224.201 (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Would probably pass academic notability, appears to have edited/contributed to two textbooks under Routledge. [1] and [2] Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Co-editing books with many contributors is not a major accomplishment in an academic's career. And even if Gynnild were the sole author of both books, "these books exist" is not really an argument for noteworthiness, either. At a bare minimum, books have to be reviewed in order to stand out. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I assumed that met criteria 4 for academics. Oaktree b (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Merely having published books, of which there are thousands every year, isn't by itself an indicator of having "made a significant impact in the area of higher education". Are those books the standard texts for courses taught at many schools? Are they known by their authors' names, the way that every physics graduate student knows that Jackson is Classical Electrodynamics? I don't see any indication that Gynnild's co-edited volumes are remotely near that status. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Further research and the conversation on this page has led me to conclude that there currently are not enough sources to support an article on this topic at this time. Moritoriko (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2025 (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.