Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Gyllenbok

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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Gyllenbok

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Kadıköylü (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kadıköylü (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kadıköylü (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kadıköylü (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Kadıköylü (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Kadıköylü (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Seems like a local, original jack-of-all-trades. The current article doesn't confer notability, and the Swedish article sadly has sources that are useless. I tried searching through the Mediearkivet connection bestowed upon me by the Swedish Wikipedia, and his book Ord till tusen was reviewed in Språktidningen 13 May 2015. On 8 June 2008, Lomma Bladet wrote that Gyllenbok issued a book about secret societies. These can be found on Google Books as well. Geschichte (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Swedish Wikipedia seems to be about a different person. Their books are about business inspiration, word use, and presentation, nothing to do with Historical Metrology. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This seems to be a mixup of two different people with the same name. I've had some contact over the years with the person described in the Swedish article and I don't think that he has anything at all to do with metrology. /FredrikT (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep. Judging from worldcat, he's the major international authority on the subject--his main work is over 100 libraries, and there's nothing at all comparable besides reprints of older books. This is not a field where we can expect even the greatest expert to be frequently cited. So he is clearly the most influential scholar in the subject. It does raise the question of how far we should narrow "the subject" down in the humanities, The alternative would be to redirect to Historical metrology, where both he and hiswork are already mentioned. DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep per excellent points by DGG. I would generally think that a person who is overwhelmingly the single most prominent published authority on a field that is itself notable would themselves by notable. BD2412 T 03:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yes, DGG is right. The book is published by a very reputable mainstream publisher (Springer), and it's available in multiple formats at a very reasonable price for its size, which is another rough and informal measure of its status. Historical metrology looks at first sight like a geeky little backwater, but it underpins all those historical questions where we need to know how big something was, how much of something someone had; it's actually a hugely important bit of infrastructure for historical studies. So we owe it to our readers to make them aware of the people who have been important in building this foundation. Not the strongest of keeps, but a very reasonable one (with no ill-feeling to the nominator, these things are worth discussing). Elemimele (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did some quick searches - oddly, there is NO RS establishing his notability, but as per DGG (thank you!), he does appear to be an expert in his field, as established by his large 3 volume encyclopedia (widely referenced and held in libraries). Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the spirit of WP:NACADEMIC #8, "The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area". While encyclopedias are not academic journals, having authored three full encyclopedia volumes about a relatively uncommon academic field and having them published is certainly an accomplished work. Also keep in the spirit of WP:ANYBIO #2, "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field". Ultimately, the encyclopedia is better off and more complete with this article than without it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 29 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.