Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanno Essén


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Daniel (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Hanno Essén

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

Subject does not pass WP:GNG or WP:PROF. An associate professor with an h-index of 15 (WoS), and a single high-impact paper with 1390 citations coauthored with Richard Bader. The paper is about atoms in molecules theory, Bader's forte. Essén's second most highly cited paper only has 52 citations. His involvement in E-cat cold fusion controversy does not seem very notable either, but could be mentioned on the E-cat page. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science,  and Sweden. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  11:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article is probably designated around him being a skeptic in the public debate, rather than an accomplished academic. He was also active in arguing against the existence of electromagnetic hypersensitivity. I did search the Swedish Mediearkivet, and didn't come up with the most compelling pieces, although the Mediearkivet isn't complete either. The "controversy" did get lots of coverage, but understandably more focused on Andrea Rossi with Essén as a side figure. Geschichte (talk) 09:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the best you could find in the Mediearkivet to satisfy WP:NBASIC? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. A single well-cited paper and retired associate professorship aren't going to be enough to pass WP:PROF, leaving only his work both debunking and pushing fringe topics, for which we would need WP:GNG notability. The two sources in the article aren't convincing: they both merely discuss Essén's role as an observer in someone else's experiment, and I don't think New Energy Times can be used as a reliable source, especially in a BLP (see RSN). The best other sourcing I could find was a Fox News piece on constant-force roller coaster design, but it barely name-drops Essén rather than having significant coverage of him. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2023 (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.