Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Lintsen


 * 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 (non-admin closure) per WP:SNOW. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Harry Lintsen

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable Dutch professor. No significant publications outside minor scholarly works. No sources.  Graymornings (talk) 11:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, probably speedy. --fvw *  11:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Full professor at Eindhoven University of Technology, a major school--I think the major engineering School in its country. Three published book, a number of articles. An authority in his field, meeting WP:PROF. A scholar is notable precisely because he publishes scholarly works. Furthermore, he is a member of his countries national academy; I am not sure we give the  Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNWA) the same standing as the Royal Society--if we do, it's an automatic pass; even if not, it's a very major factor in notability. So is being founder of a national level professional organization, and the award from the government. DGG (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, mostly per DGG. Article meets WP:PROF with the professor publishing many academic articles and papers. MuZemike  ( talk ) 18:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Subject demonstrably meets WP:PROF and WP:N in general. &mdash; neuro(talk) 22:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep By the authority vested in me by a computer and internet connection, and in the interest of countering anti-Dutch bias, and under WP:PROF #3, I declare that membership in the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences should give an automatic pass, just like fellowship in the Royal Society. With only 200 members under 65, 110 in the sciences, it is if anything more selective.John Z (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As a Dutchman, my appreciation to John Z. I agree with him about the Academy membership and with DGG about Eindhoven University being one of the two leading technological universities in The Netherlands (the other one being Delft University). The article needs some cleanup and some more references (especially for the "Companion in the Order of Orange-Nassau", I have no clue what a "companion" is in this connection, although the order is well known). I think I have seen a large review of one of his technological history of The Nethrlands book series in a major Dutch newspaper, but have no time to search for it right now. Still, should be easy to find more references online (I added 2 to the article), after all, the guy's in a technological field!
 * Keep. Agree with John Z regarding membership in the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences being enough to meet WP:PROF criterion #3.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. As noted above, membership Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences may already be sufficient to pass criterion 3 of WP:PROF, but even if not, there is enough here to satisfy criterion 1 of WP:PROF (for which the academy membership is a significant contributing factor). Nsk92 (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Now that the refs are there and the article's more encyclopedic, I can see why this subject is indeed notable. I say keep it. By the way, John Z, I'm not sure there's any "anti-Dutch bias" on Wikipedia. I definitely don't have any - I've personally loved many a Dutchman. ;-)  Graymornings (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As always, I was only 99% serious. Maybe a little less. :-).John Z (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2008 (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.