Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Hartemink (2nd nomination)


 * 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 speedy keep. Subject meets multiple facets of WP:NPROF, and the spa nominator account should look at notability criteria before saying they are “clearly not met”. (non-admin closure)  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 03:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Alfred Hartemink
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page is an evident attempt of self-promotion. This page does not adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy.

Hundreds of University professors have long numbers of publications and are editor of a journal. The criteria of notability are clearly not met. There are countless full professors just as good out there, many with more publications/books/prestigious awards. Google scholar gives him an low-average h-index for a professor in this discipline. What if everybody in soil science with more than 5000 citations would have their own wikipedia page? Being editor of a Q2 journal (Geoderma Regional, SCImago classification for soil science journals), does not help in meeting the criteria of notability needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro201649 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC) — Pedro201649 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. It is true that the article appears to have been created by the subject. Thirteen years ago. It has had many other editors since then, most of whom were presumably not motivated by self-promotion. The only other argument made by the nomination is WP:WAX, specifically called out as something to avoid in deletion discussions. The citation record of the subject, with 18 publications having over 100 citations and an h-index of 42, is well above our usual standards for WP:PROF, and he also appears to pass #C3 (as a fellow of a major academic society) and #C8 (as editor-in-chief of a well-established journal). The unsigned spa nominator's claims that these criteria are not met have no actual justification. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Concur with David that this is a clear pass of WP:NPROF C1, based upon ~18 >100 citation papers. I don't see any major BLP issues, and I don't know where an h-index of 42 became low-average. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very clear pass of WP:Prof. Does the 3-edit spa nominator have an axe to grind? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC).
 * Speedy keep per . XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy/snow keep, per all the comments of others above. The subject clearly passes WP:PROF based on a combination of high citability, being an elected fellow of a scholarly society and an award from that society. Arguably passes WP:PROF and WP:PROF as well. GoogleScholar gives the subject the h-index of 42, which is impressive for a field with moderate citation rates. A 2013 article (of which the subject is actually a co-author) analyzes citation data in soil science and notes that the median GoogleScholar citation index there is 15, with the 75-th quantile being 26. So the nominator's claim that "Google scholar gives him an low-average h-index for a professor in this discipline" is demionstrably false. Nsk92 (talk) 12:47, 6 June 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.