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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Janne Wallenius[edit]

Janne Wallenius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is inappropriate and a conflict of interest for this author of this autobiographical page to assert his own importance within the global scientific community as he has done on the talk page in contesting the deletion. See WP:AUTOBIOG which states "Just because you honestly believe you are being neutral doesn't mean you are. Unconscious biases can and do exist, and are a very common cause of the problems with autobiographies—which is why we discourage autobiographies themselves and not just active, deliberate self-promotion." Also, see WP:PROUD which discusses how writing a Wikipedia entry about oneself is a violation of the Neutrality Point of View policy. Gail W 1965 (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A search of Google Books and Google Scholar indicates he passes WP:ACADEMIC. Although the article was submitted by the subject, the article has been edited by several long term editors. The essay at WP:PROUD does not state that it is a violation of NPOV. CBS527^Talk 04:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is highly unusual for a "new editor" with a total of 6 edits (all pertaining to the deletion of this page) to be nominating an article for AFD. ([1]) CBS527^Talk 04:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This new editor plans to contribute to Wikipedia in the near future with other more positive edits and updates. The choice to focus on the current article was raised by the unusual flags for the autobiographical nature of the subject page and the lack of notability flag. The editor had not encountered such flags on other subject Wikipedia pages. Gail W 1965 (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The Google Scholar search reveals only an average number of papers in mostly low impact journals for a full professor and one self-published book. If those academic contributions merit a Wikipedia page, then every full professor would have one. Wikipedia is not meant to be an outlet for the self-promotion of academics or a means by which academics communicate their research to the broader scientific community. There are other websites designed for that purpose -- (most notably Google Scholar and ResearchGate). Gail W 1965 (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gail W 1965 is the nominator. – Joe (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - In addition to the lack of notability as an academic (at least outside of Sweden), the originating author (subject) violates Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies by discussing (arguably promoting) his start-up company, LeadCold, within his page. See the example presented in WP:ACTUALCOI, which states "An actual COI exists when an editor has a COI with respect to a certain judgment, and he is in a position where the judgment must be exercised.[14] Example: A business owner has an actual COI if he edits articles and engages in discussions about his own business." Gail W 1965 (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gail W 1965 If you want to expand on your own comments, add further text to your existing comments in preference to creating a new section. You can start a new paragraph indented the same as your bulleted paragraph by starting a line with a colon (:). It is not necessary, nor proper, to add recommendations (Keep or Delete) more than once as you have done here and above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbs527 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BASIC and no indication the subject meets WP:PROF. Current article appears slightly promotional. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - passes WP:Academic and WP:GNG. Sources are ok in the article. Also per search at Google Books. The notion that he is not an established academic outside Sweden is irrelevant, he is a known one inside. The supposed problem of Promo is a problem that can be solved, even the editors that says Delete per it claims that it is a slight problem. No reason for deletion if sources overall points towards notability.BabbaQ (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing user I also note that the nominator Gail W 1985 has given two Delete !votes plus the nom itself. Only the nom should be considered.BabbaQ (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As a professor. Obviously notable.--Ipigott (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a professor doesn't automatically confer notability. This is clear from WP:NACADEMICS, which spells out criteria for judging professors to be notable. Largoplazo (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per IPiggot and BabbaQ. Article subject passes WP:GNG and should be retained. Antonioatrylia (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Many well-cited papers, a Scopus h-index of 21 and lots of GBooks hits suggest the subject passes WP:PROF#C1, although physics is a high-citation field and he doesn't appear to hit any of the other criteria. Similarly he seems to be mentioned a lot in the news, particularly in relation to his start up, which may scrape past WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO. Not super convincing in isolation but I think taken together these demonstrate notability. The issue of promotional content has evidently already been fixed. – Joe (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.