Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jens Kjaer Sorensen

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Kjaer Sorensen[edit]

Economist, and would seem to need to meet WP:ACADEMIC. I don't see much independent/secondary coverage of him; ghits indicate nearly all references to be on blogs/social networking sites. Nothing in gnews. Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability criteria for WP:BIO. This individual, a common equity trader at a bank, is asserting notability solely based on his seemingly unique Master's thesis about the housing market crash. However, reports like a speech by the Bank of Canada Governor and blogs on economics indicate many well-known economists predicted it -- and no one mentions Sorensen -- until he inserts his own name in discussions. The few google hits reveal a lot of effort at self-promotion through self-submitting websites -- even trying to sell his thesis on Amazon. There is no substantial coverage. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A google search with his name correctly spelled (Jens Kjær Sørensen) revealed the following [1], which is exclusive coverage by an major, independent reliable source (in Norwegian). There's also this [2] from a major Swedish publication. I have doubts, however, that this is enough to fulfill the general notability criteria. Either way, his name is Jens Kjær Sørensen, and not "Jens Kjaer Sorensen". decltype 15:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clarification on the name. However, google search always includes hits for alternative spellings (ae for æ, o, oe or ø, and aa for å). As you can see, a search with the Danish spelling finds the same few hits of blogs and self-submitted comments. Nothing scholarly. I agree with you that a couple of Scandinavian news articles are unpersuasive. — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The E24 and di.se pieces go some way towards satisfying WP:BIO but not I think quite enough. And I am very leery of his claims for being the only one to predict the obvious; I think, per WP:NPOV, we should cover those claims neutrally and objectively, which is to say we should say that most people don't take them seriously. But there are no sources saying so because he hasn't received enough coverage from neutral sources: exactly the dilemma that WP:BIO and more generally WP:N is intended to prevent. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2009 (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.