Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Hoogerbeets


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Frank Hoogerbeets

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not meeting WP:NACADEMIC. In the news currently for his prediction related to the recent earthquake in Syria-Turkey. WP:BLP1E applies. Hitro talk 06:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Netherlands. Hitro talk 06:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notability not established, this is close to the only event that would make him worthy of an article. Silikonz 💬 14:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep this one might have legs. NPR, Snopes and a French TF1 article  about how he was wrong. Oaktree b (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * or why you can't "predict" earthquakes. I suppose he was "right", but the methodology was wrong. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So this is a classic "stopped clock is right twice a day" situation. The Snopes article from 2017 is the only thing so far that I've seen from before 2023 and it seems to just be repeating a few of his predictions and then actual scientists say that it's bs. I'm not quite convinced that that's really significant coverage but I want to see what others think. ~Styyx Talk ? 17:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * He's in 2018 Alaska coverage also . I'm undecided. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see huge news coverage, in many languages. There is definitively more room for expansion. This person will probably also received further notability in the future, as he will be remembered for this. It this article is deleted, it will most likely be recreated in some years. Super   Ψ   Dro  21:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Soooo crystalling again? ~Styyx Talk ? 21:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Soooo that does not invalidate the first half of my comment. Super   Ψ   Dro  21:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Quack scientist gets lucky. Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WWGB (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. Widely debunked quack who pops up every few years because he makes massive numbers of predictions and inevitably a few can be interpreted as having panned out. No real significant coverage; if this is significant coverage, then every viral tweet that gets a couple articles written up about it deserves an article. Jokullmusic 01:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Gets lucky. Not notable. --DragonFederal (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Only notable for that tweet Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes WP:NACADEMIC. His research has been broadly construed and demonstrated by independent reliable sources like The Jerusalem Post and News18 India. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 15:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Really? Which criterion in WP:ACADEMIC do you think he satisfies? I cannot find any ... WWGB (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The first line of that guideline "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.". ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 14:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk !  15:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Fails WP:ACADEMIC and only claim to fame is a pure guess that turned out to BD right, not based on any research. Jeppiz (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per User:Oaktree_b We need to focus on if the subject it notable, not make judgements about why the subject is notable. He is notable for what I consider to be stupid reasons, and I think the sort of nonsense he is up to is problematic, but we're not here to make a list of people we like, but people who are notable and he has been significantly noted, for different predictions in different years by media in different countries, which makes a WP:GNG pass. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 05:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete – While coverage from a few years back means that this isn't a BLP1E case, the sources are all around the same: he makes a prediction which is repeated by the source, then an actual academic tells why it's bs, end of article. I wasn't convinced that that was significant coverage about Hoogerbeets himself, and I don't think it really is. I think what was meant above with NACADEMIC is that he passes criteria 1, but to pass that the "citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books", which The Jerusalem Post and News18 India (and other newspapers) are not. I don't see how useful a merge/redirect option would be. ~Styyx Talk ? 07:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It also says that "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates.". ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:Navy;">Let's Talk ! 14:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what way you are trying to go. This guy doesn't publish academic work or scholarly publications. It's just tweets. ~Styyx Talk ? 16:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.