Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika Jensen-Jarolim


 * 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The result was   withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Erika Jensen-Jarolim

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Created by connected editor or subject themselves, User:Jensen-Jarolim. Appears to be a purely promotional/autobiographical article on the subject's scientific publications and career. All references are publications by the subject, and do not meet WP:GNG as we don't have significant coverage of the person in independent sources. Should be a pretty straightforward deletion since we don't consider academic researchers notable just for having publications. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn by nominator. We've got enough to establish notability for a small stub-like article. Other discussions here are related to due weight which are better discussed outside an AfD. At this point, probably best to see what we can do with the article for awhile. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  13:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  13:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. She has headed an institute at a university and was the first of a projected four professorial appointments to a prestigious new research institute that is a collaboration between that university and two others. I've substantiated some of the career points from one of several official faculty pages for her: others are this and this. (This is an allergy practice she is a member of; it backs up more of the education dates.) I found a newspaper article about her, an interview in a national physicians' journal/newsletter, and she was interviewed about her research field on national television in a series on science; I've added these to the article, and they represent a good degree of media coverage for an academic. I've also extensively edited the article to make it less promotional, although there is still a sea of citations of papers she has published. In addition to her being covered in reliable sources and holding important academic positions, her research may also have made enough of an impact to satisfy that criterion under WP:PROF: her work on birch pollen and/or on AllergoOncology. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems to comfortably meet Notability (academics). Problems with promotion in the article should be solved by editing, not deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. She does seem to meet notability requirements and is written in an encyclopedic tone and does not seem promotional. It would be nice, though, to have a process for request edit by the user who seems to be the subject of the article - and several of the sources are journal articles in which she was an author or her web page. It would be better to find secondary sources.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 21:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I came back to see if I could quickly updates some of the references - and it appears that there are a lot of primary sources, where the subject was a co-author of the articles / papers. I thought that what are needed are secondary sources that discuss the findings from the initial published report. And her CV is one of the sources. It would be helpful to have input from someone who regularly works on academic articles / biographies regarding the sources for this article.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 06:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll admit this is mostly why I proposed it for deletion. I was figuring it would be better to start over from scratch if someone uninvolved thought she was truly notable under WP:YOURSELF: "If your life and achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later." I'll have to do it later today if no one else does, but I can go and gut the article of the primary sources you mentioned to see how it looks as it would have been done anyways with the COI issue.
 * I have reverted that gutting because articles at AfD should not be blanked. (And also because in your first edit you removed the newspaper article because it was in a foreign language - foreign-language sources are absolutely not inappropriate. The complete listing of her papers and books should probably be reduced to a select list, but since the information on what she researches is footnoted to them, it's a hard task to do without ... gutting the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not blanking the page, but parsing it down to what the page would be like if it was kept anyways. I was mostly removing the more direct COI edits, and non WP:MEDRS sources for medical claims to leave the low hanging fruit that could potentially be sourced. This would also give a good idea of what a base article would look like if it was kept. There's nothing wrong with editing a page during an AfD, but the issue is that we don't have a whole lot to go on from independent reliable sources in the first place. That can make it appear like the page is moving towards being blanked, but I originally left all the content intact so the whole picture could be seen with the dovetailing COI issues. Probably wouldn't have been better to seperate the two and handle that first, so I apologize for any confusion that could have lead to. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You and another editor appear to have been working at cross purposes. They removed the independent press reference to which many of the career points you subsequently marked as needing a citation were cited, because the source is not in English. I have now supplied the requested quotations and translations (from which I imagine it is apparent that the sentences in the article summarise what that source says; except for details of her education, which as stated above, are corroborated by her various faculty pages). This makes for a huge amount of quotation, which may lead to copyvio concerns; I would be happiest removing the quotes and translation again and leaving them in the history for those who need to check. I have in addition pared down the citations to her academic publications to the bare minimum for establishing veracity and notability; again, those I deleted are in the history. I have however reinstated the non-academic account of her research; this does not fall under MEDRS because the article is not about allergies and cancer, and it is needed as a (partly) independent source further attesting to her notability. One cannot remove both her publications because they are primary sources and external mentions of her research because they are not reliable sources in medical articles and nonetheless expect notability to be demonstrated by citation of sources. Hopefully what I've done makes it clearer what she's done, that she's been written about, and what her research is about. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * keep she is plenty notable per Notability_(people). there were COI problems but we can overcome them.  Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2014 (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.