Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian M. Hauglid

:{{la|Brian M. Hauglid}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd=Wikipedia%3AArticles+for+deletion%2F{{urlencode:Brian M. Hauglid}} AfD statistics])

:({{findsources|Brian M. Hauglid}})

This article on an associate professor was written by User:Bmhauglid. Hauglid publishes in the rarefied realm of "support of the Book of Abraham". I feel he does not pass WP:PROF. He has edited two books, which in the article he claims to be first editor on, but whose covers show him to be the second editor. I feel his article should be deleted from Wikipedia just for this deceitful behavior, but fortunately his academic record is insufficient. Abductive (reasoning) 15:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I agree. The article is also serving as his CV. Unsupported self-promotion all around. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

:Very Strong Keep. While it is true that it appears that Hauglid has edited this article, he did not create it, I did. Hauglid is an important specialist on Egyptian and other ancient history issues. He has written widely on these subjects. Keeping this article is totally worthwhile.John Pack Lambert 05:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

:I do not think the listing of his books is deceitful. For one ting, as I have said before Hauglid DID NOT start this article, I did. Secondly, I have at times listed people as editor of a work and not managed to realize that other people were involved. Such accusations of "deciet" have no basis in fact. You are supposed to assume good faith, and that has clearly not be done in anyway.John Pack Lambert 05:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

::Who [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_M._Hauglid&diff=prev&oldid=300488380 put in] the incorrect authorship? Abductive (reasoning) 09:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

:I have come across a mention of Hauglid in a book published by Brill, and have added this reference to the footnotes of the article. Brill is THE leading publisher worldwide in the field of scholarly works on early Christianity. While one reference may not make Hauglid notable, he has done studies of Abraham that have gained note from people who quite probably have never even heard of the Book of Abraham.John Pack Lambert 06:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I was going to edit the authorship, but I have two questions before doing so. In some ways, since we are listing Hauglid's contributions, is it that important that we list him as a secondary author?John Pack Lambert 15:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have relisted the two books. So can we now end this discussion and agree that the article should be preserved.John Pack Lambert 15:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. His work does not demonstrate impact. WorldCat shows the [http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/47201083&referer=brief_results "Traditions"] and the [http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/54536851&referer=brief_results "Astronomy"] books are each held by only about 30 libraries world-wide. (For comparison, the vanity-published book discussed in AfD: Lisa Wolfe is held in more that twice that many.) The published articles that are listed seem to mostly fall outside the mainstream academic journal infrastructure. WoS lists only the "Al-Ghazali: A Muslim Seeker of Truth" 2001 paper in BYU Studies, showing 0 citations for an h-index of 0 (query was "Author=(Hauglid B*)"). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC).
• Delete. As per above. GS gives only 1 cite. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2009 (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.