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. The keep arguments are very weak on policy based rationales. I considered draftifying so the style issues can be dealt with, but there is no point in doing that if it still can't get past NPROF. If someone can turn turn up some publications that get sufficient citations to stand a chance of satisfying those who argued the subject's citation rate is too low, then I would be willing to restore as a draft. If not, it would be a wasted effort. SpinningSpark 17:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alon Korngreen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Promotional piece about a non-notable subject, which was created by a paid editor. Seems to exist for the sole purpose of improving the subject's SEO on Google FASTILY 08:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Justiyaya 08:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Justiyaya 08:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Comment I would suggest Keep and Draftify. He has five papers with more than 100 citations that put's him over the line. Not the most salubrious of NPROF qualifications, not in the top tier by any means, but more than borderline. The article is puffy and promo, written in that jocular manner, your find with paid editors. I really don't like paid editors. If it is draftified, I can do the work to copyedit it. scope_creep^Talk 09:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the articles by this paid editor need checked. I don't know why it wasn't draftified before. scope_creep^Talk 09:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify or delete. This is a relatively high-citation field, and I do not think the subject stands out well above the average professor in it. These are the Scopus citation metrics for his 50+ coauthors with >16 papers (cutoff determined by the lowest paper # of a coauthor who is a senior scientist or holds another pure research position beyond postdoc; limiting to just professors would raise all values significantly):

Total citations: average: 5512, median: 1969, Korngreen: 1678.

Papers: avg: 91, med: 55, K: 68.

h-index: avg: 28, med: 24, K: 24.

Top 5 citations: 1st: avg: 1071, med: 200, K: 192. 2nd: avg: 307, med: 139, K: 94. 3rd: avg: 231, med: 112, K: 80. 4th: avg: 190, med: 92, K: 74. 5th: avg: 144, med: 84, K: 69.,

JoelleJay (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • (I wrote this article and mentioned COI) Please see 160 papers containing “Korngreen” in Academia.edu. Ovedc (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete see no evidence that this researcher is any more significant than average, or there is enough independent coverage to write a wikipedia article about him. (t · c) buidhe 19:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I wrote this article and mentioned COI) Biophysics of ion channels is a small field with a relatively low citation rate. However, Korngreen's papers are cited for many years as is evident from the top cited papers.Ovedc (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Then why is he at or below the median in Scopus citations among other researchers in this field...?, JoelleJay (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep reasonable GS citations in high-cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep (I wrote this article and mentioned COI) This article comply with the specific notability guideline for academics (WP:PROF):

  1) Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work - citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books.!

  5) The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources
  

  Thenks - Ovedc (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• NPROF also says either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Where are the extremely highly cited works or the substantial number with significant citations? What is your justification for When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished? JoelleJay (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A known biophysicist, who specializes in brain research. A professor in a known university and the head of the Multidisciplinary Gonda Brain Research Center there since 2019. There are articles about other scientific professors like him. I don't find a reason to delete. Danny-w (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. From all of the above. Laliv g (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 09:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - A scholar? Ping User:Piotrus, it's more of his territory. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Summoned, I appear. And I am not impressed. "Korngreen work is influencing the brain research for over a decade" - according to whom? Puffery amidsts what appears to be pretty average career. Delete might be a bit harsh, but I think drafity will be a good compromise, assuming the author is still active and is willing to go through the AfC process. And it may be a few years before the subject meets NPROF. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• delete or at most draftify to remove the puffery an other signs of coi writing, and then reconsider. The notability is borderline. Scientists are judged by the importance of their best work, that's whats influential . There's no point looking at how many unimportant papers someone did--unimportant is unimportant. His citations are 246, 146, 111..... In many fields I would considee that notable ,but not in biomedicine . Particularly telling is that the only paper with over 200 cites is from 2000, when he was still a post-doc. That's not independent work; it was coauthored with his advisor, Bert Sakmann Comments like A professor in a known university show lack of knowledge of WP that's pretty much the definition of INDISCRIMINATE. It is a little surprising to find someone in what would appear to be a high level position with so few citations. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the sources establish in what way he is in fact distinguished or influential in his field or provide independent substantive coverage about him and/or his research. Number of citations should not be used to assume this. Reywas92^Talk 22:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I find JoelleJay's analysis persuasive. The citation-based argument for wiki-notability just doesn't stand up, and we don't have anything else substantial to go on. A full professorship and what appears to be a mid-level administrative position aren't what our criteria look for. In many cases, paid editing should be wasted money, and I think this is one of those times. XOR'easter (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep reasonable GS citations in high-cited field. Crocodile2020 (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No part of WP:NPROF says a hand-wavey "reasonable" number of citations is adequate for notability. It says "several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates". Sure, Korngreen and his co-authors have a "reasonable" number of citations, but that is not necessarily "subtstantial" or "significant" in this field and is without clear evidence of how he "has made significant impact", is wholly insufficient. Reywas92^Talk 14:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per JoelleJay. There might possibly be an article that could be written about this, but WP:TNT applies. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2022 (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.