Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ole Jensen (neuroscientist)


 * 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) -   t • c 14:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Ole Jensen (neuroscientist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article created and submitted for AfC by obvious throwaway account, and moved to mainspace by a suspicious autoconfirmed account without any deliberation or review. Subject of article notably does not meet GNG. Highly likely a product of undisclosed paid editing Trumanshow69 (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC) — Trumanshow69 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  12:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  12:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NPROF C1. His top-cited five publications have over 1000 citations each, and I don't see any other red flags (though the article could use some trimming).  Comment that the nominator is themself an SPA. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that (your last sentence) was what I was going to say but got an edit conflict. Can't the nominator see the inconsistency between saying this was created by a suspicious account and, as a very first edit, proposing deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Co-director of a centre and over 26k cites on Google Scholar, h-index of 72, etc. I've not looked more carefully, but seems to be notable. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Having one's very first edit be a deletion proposal with language like moved to mainspace by a suspicious autoconfirmed account is itself a bit suspicious. Nobody says autoconfirmed unless Wikipedia has already gotten into their brain. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The article was created by a banned undisclosed paid editor. Normally I would CSD it, but given that it has some editing since then I don't feel that it is still G5. UPE is not cause to delete in an AFD, but given the questioning of the nominator (which may or may not be justified), it seemed worth clarifying this part of the issue. - Bilby (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Bilby, while I think the subject is probably notable, I'll stipulate that my edits to the page were not significant for purposes of G5ing. XOR&#39;easter, you're the other one that did some heavy editing.  What do you think? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It isn't so much G5 which is my concern - I'm just ok with the community deciding to keep a page even if it was a result of undisclosed paid editing. So I'm happy with whereever this ends up. - Bilby (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The only work I did was to remove some duplicated information (the list of publications had footnotes to the same publications). I don't think that's "significant", really, despite the character count of the change. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete The article seem to have no criteria satisfying WP:NACADEMIC. Also, when someone is from the field of Neuroscience, it is ovious that he/she will have a number of academic journals. The journals are very much expected to be cited as well, but that does not make anyone qualify for being featured in our encyclopedia. There are many neuroscientists who may be equivalent to this person. Also the only contribution this person has is seemingly much commercialized. This person is conducting a project at University of Birmingham which has a potential of commercial outcome soon. Though, the activity of the nominator is very fishy, but his claim seem to be valid as this is clearly a paid post. I think, for violating the spirit of wikipedia WP:PE and not meeting WP:NACADEMIC, this page should be deleted. --ChayanSen (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC) — ChayanSen (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I really don't think that a valid case can be made that the subject fails WP:NACADEMIC. Such a large number of citations is only to be expected of notable academics who pass WP:NACADEMIC. The circumstances surrounding the creation of this article and this deletion discussion are a separate issue from notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 01:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Very highly cited author. There are considerably not many neuroscientists with 200 papers and a high number of citations (and I would argue any of them with that many are probably notable!). As a general note there is some possibility for confusion with the very famous (in the field) Ole Norregard Jensen who is a highly notable proteomic scientist who on occasion works in the brain. This article isn't particularly promotional in any sense, nor was the original article. I am confused about the "only contribution" being commercial? Also I'm generally confused about the rationale of a scientist creating a page for promotion, though I could see a university PR department doing so. PainProf (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Article could definitely be improved and made more neutral, but the subject clearly meets criteria 1 of WP:NPROF. Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * Keep. Neuroscience is a high-citation field but even so this is an easy pass of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: 6 articles with over 1000 citations each, and an H-index of 72. Earthianyogi (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2020 (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.