Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnljot Elgsaeter


 * 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   no consensus. Tending towards keep, though.  Sandstein  16:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Arnljot Elgsaeter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Possible vanity page without clear claim of notability. Creation by a WP:SPA raises a red flag. An H-index of 25 is not very high for an emeritus prof. (He should probably almost that high with citations from his grad students alone.) TR 10:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I did a news search in Atekst, which includes his local newspaper Adresseavisen. The only hit was a short article in which he has a three-sentence comment regarding that one of his colleagues (not him) had an article published in Science. The article provides no assertion of notability, it is unreferenced, there is no academic reasons for him to be notable and I cannot see that he has had press coverage which makes him notable. Arsenikk (talk)  21:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. h-index of 25 clearly passes WP:Prof by Wikipedia's standards, 15 would suffice. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC).
 * Criterion WP:Prof requires the person to be highly cited. An h-index of 25 would be high if he was mid career, but after 40 years it is nothing to write home about. (citatitions from grad students and other collaborators would probably bring him there). I think you would be hard pressed to find emeriti professors in his field with a lower h-index.TR 07:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please cite policy for your claim. h-index is taken to be a cumulative measure. It does not matter when it is achieved. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC).
 * Citations are always considered relative to other similar scientists (so you have to compare with other emeriti in his field). You have given absolutely no argument why you think that 25 is an high H-index for his field. Data suggests that is not. Of the 15 co-authors on his papers with more than 50 citations only 2 have a lower H-index (16 en 23), while the median is somewhere around 50. So please provide some proper argument to base that his H-index is high.TR 12:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the discussion here . Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC).
 * I see no real discussion there, only you pulling numbers out of your ass. In practice, a useful way of the determining if an academic is highly cited is to compare the academic to his/her coauthors. This gives a rather solid indication of the citation numbers of the academic in question are high or not. In this case, the academic is around the 20th percentile in terms of h-index compared to the coauthors on his most highly cited papers. This is a very clear indication that this person is in relative terms not "extremely highly cited as is required by WP:Prof.TR 14:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It does not help your argument to insult another editor. The discussion I referred to provoked no dissent from the views expressed about the numbers establishing precedent for notability. You also misquote WP:Prof. It actually says 'either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates.' The citations of the subject  satisfy both. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC).
 * And yet you still have to provide any argument as too whether your last statement is true in the context of the subject's field. I think I have quite clearly demonstrated that this is not the case. For a professor in his field he is in the lower percentiles of numbers of citations. (Also note that I did not insult you, I just said that you pulling numbers out of your ass, i.e. making claims without backing them up. Something that you are still doing now.)TR 07:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails WP:GNG. Aftenposten archives yield nothing of value either. Geschichte (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Arsenikk and Geschichte - fails WP:GNG as there has not been any valuable coverage in the biggest newspapers in Norway. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Three papers with over 200 citations each, first author on each, and far and away the most cites in a search for "erythrocyte shape", convince me that he passes WP:PROF. Looking for newspaper coverage is pointless and irrelevant as that's not where one expects to find coverage of academics. I improved the referencing of the article; it's still very weak, but a lot better than its previous nonexistent state. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Those numbers are not meaningful without a context. We have already established that the subject is/was active in a very highly cited field. Daniel Branton, his doctoral advisor and coauthor on each of the three papers with more than 200 citations has over 20 papers with more than 200 citations, the top cited paper having over 1300 citations. Clearly, Daniel Branton is notable, however Arnljot Elgsaeter's main claim to fame seems to be that he was his gradstudent. Beyond that, there is little to point towards his notability.TR 10:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete It looks like a vanity page to me. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see no evidence that this terse stub of a BLP is a vanity page. Even if it were there would be no policy reason to delete it. I remind you of BLP policy 'Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.' The present BLP seems to me to be a paragon of modesty and restraint. Compare it to this one. Xxanthippe 02:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC).
 * Could you sign your comment please? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Per David Eppstein. The "erythrocyte shape" argument convinced me.John Z (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep He is a member of Royal Norwegian Society of Sciences and Letters which I think makes him notable per WP:PROF. Iselilja (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding this — I think it makes the case for WP:PROF much more objective. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That actually addresses one of my biggest concerns: It appeared as if this academic at the end of his career had never received any formal recognition from his peers, which would have been a strong contraindication of him being notable. However, being elected to a national academy is a clear indication of having been noted.TR 11:02, 27 November 2012 (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.