Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geir Bjørklund


 * 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. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk)  02:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Geir Bjørklund

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Per WP:NACADEMIC, the article lacks in secondary literature referring to Bjørklund. This was also discussed on Portal Medicine, it seems like that the same SPA user has created this page and translated them via Google translate in different languages to pretend notability. The article is subject to heavy POV, the SPA was now removing lot's of parts. However, without finding secondary literature (CONEM the webpage of Bjørklund himself) and demonstrating the notability, there is no reason to keep the advertising article. Julius Senegal (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Julius Senegal (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Currently, the article mainly uses secondary references. In fact, 14 of 15 (93%) references are to secondary sources. The present version of the article is also entirely different from Wikipedia articles about Geir Bjørklund in other languages. Ruth Dahle (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ruth Dahle (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBW (talk • contribs) 16:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We need secondary references acc. to WP:MEDRS, not primary sources about "he is member of xy" of the organization itself.
 * Notability is still lacking. --Julius Senegal (talk) 09:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Journalism, Medicine,  and Norway. Skynxnex (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This article can still need improvement. I am slowly improving the text and references, but I will be happy if others can help. Ruth Dahle (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Geir Bjørklund is a renowned Norwegian researcher. He was among the first in the country who evaluate the risk of occupational disease in dentistry due to mercury and mercury vapor exposure.[1-3] According to Nature, research by Bjørklund and collaborators indicates that long-term, low-dose radiation may cause cardiovascular problems, including high blood pressure.[4]
 * I have also researched more about Geir Bjørklund, but I am unsure if these references are allowed. However, how to otherwise document these facts about a media-shy researcher?:
 * Geir Bjørklund ranks among the top one percent of the world’s researchers.[5] He ranks No. 2 in mercury in Europe and No. 4 worldwide.[6, 7] In selenium, he ranks No. 4 in Europe and No. 5 worldwide (Expertscape).[8, 9] Expertscape also ranks him among the top published authors worldwide on autism spectrum disorder.[10] His current h-index, as seen on Google Scholar, is 52 and results from 8,642 citations (2022-12-10).[11]
 * Considering the growth of citations to the scientific works of Geir Bjørklund, as seen by the graph on GoogleScholar, it is difficult not thinking that a short biography about him may interest at least many of the large number of people who cite him in their theses and scientific articles. Therefore, I conclude that Bjørklund is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. However, other people must decide if this is correct or not. I am not an expert on Wikipedia and its editorial rules; I only express what I think.
 * References
 * 1. Kvikksølv-plomber rammer tannlegen. Østlandets Blad 25.03.1991. [Norwegian newspaper]
 * 2. Kvikksølv helsefarlig. Adresseavisen 25.03.1991. [Norwegian newspaper]
 * 3. Myhr KI. Farlig for tannlegene. Dagbladet 03.04.1991. [Norwegian newspaper]
 * 4. Yan W. In the shadow of nuclear sins. Nature 2019: 568(4 April):22-24. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01034-8
 * 5. Geir Bjorklund: Stats. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Geir-Bjorklund/stats. Assessed 10 December 2022.
 * 6. Expertise in Mercury: Europe. https://expertscape.com/ex/mercury/c/eur. Assessed 10 December 2022.
 * 7. Expertise in Mercury: Worldwide. https://expertscape.com/ex/mercury/p/earth. Assessed 10 December 2022.
 * 8. Expertise in Selenium: Europe. https://expertscape.com/ex/selenium/c/eur. Assessed 10 December 2022.
 * 9. Expertise in Selenium: Worldwide. https://expertscape.com/ex/selenium/p/earth. Assessed 10 December 2022.
 * 10. Expertise in Autism Spectrum Disorder: Geir Bjorklund. https://expertscape.com/au/autism+spectrum+disorder/Bjørklund%2C+Geir. Assessed 10 December 2022.
 * 11. GoogleScholar: Geir Bjorklund. https://scholar.google.gr/citations?user=7G_z7d4AAAAJ&hl=en. Assessed 10 December 2022. Ruth Dahle (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Another relevant paper with reference to Geir Bjørklund is:
 * Christensen B. Ambisiøst og uklart om biologisk medisin. Tidsskr Nor Lægeforen 2001; 121:3096. Ruth Dahle (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop spreading obscure links (expertscape) or papers from Bjorklund himself.
 * If he is really notable, then normal secondary sources should proove it easily. Also, in English please, as a wannabe famous scientist he shouldn't rely only on Norwegian sources --Julius Senegal (talk) 12:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As seen in my comments above, the data of the scientific publishing of Geir Bjørklund speaks for itself. Since 2013, Bjørklund has published 237 PubMed-indexed scientific papers in English. Everyone who wants can check his ranking also in Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and other relevant databases.
 * The Expertscape medical search and ranking solution uses objective algorithms to identify the most knowledgeable and experienced doctors and medical institutions across over 26,000 specific topics, stratified by geography. Expertscape defines an expert as someone who has published peer-reviewed research in the science, therapies, and complications for a specific medical topic. The data is obtained from PubMed at the United States National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health, which comprises more than 34 million citations from biomedical literature. The listing of the rankings of Geir Bjørklund is based on articles published since 2012. Ruth Dahle (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't you get it?
 * Counting and citing simple data bases is WP:OR and a primary source anyway.
 * Where are now the various publications of newspapers mentioning Bjorklund, making him notable? Where are the various books saying "thank you" to Bjorklund, highlighting him as a famous researcher?
 * If he was so notable, everyone would know about him, would write about him.
 * Stick now to WP:NACADEMIC instead of wasting time here. --Julius Senegal (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Julius Senegal has made his point clear enough here, and I have limited time for this article. I have explained the references I have used, nothing else. The article was created many years before I started contributing to it, and according to its log, various people seem to have contributed. Therefore a more proper add would be: "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Ruth Dahle (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Rather horrible article (Marquis, really?), but that's a reason to edit, not delete. Article needs overhaul, removing suspect references (Marquis, Expertscape, and such). In any case, Bjørklund's Google Scholar metrics (<8600 citations, h-index of 52) is many ties more than what we generally accept as evidence for notability (1000 citations, h-index of 20). Clear meet of NACADEMIC#1. --Randykitty (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Notability is generated by reliable secondary sources, not by numbers we interpret.
 * Again, if he was so notable, then tons of magazines, newspaper etc. would know about him. Instead - silence.
 * Please explain acc. to WP:NACADEMIC why he is considered as notable. NO point is applicable. As for #1, nope: ("as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.") --Julius Senegal (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Julius, but that's how NACADEMIC works. Read the notes. There are usually few if any in-depth secondary sources for academics, but having your publications cited over 8000 times is prime evidence of having a significant impact on your field. --Randykitty (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes WP:Prof. Nominator might find it useful to swot up on policy before making further nominations in this area, Xxanthippe (talk).


 * 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.