Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.b.m vranken


 * 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. Tyrenius (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

J.b.m vranken

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Two unsourced bios added by, who removes cleanup and other maintenance tags without any attempt to fix what's wrong with the article. There is not much assertion of notability, other than being a professor of law, which does not necessarily confer notability. JuJube (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per nom. Not much assertion of notability, sources provided don't verify all the claims; inparticluar, "He received an honorary doctorate from Leiden University". Any other claims need to be verified. I'd also suggest sticking a on the creating user's talk page.  Rt . 17:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per . Cirt (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * needs cleanup, but that's not a valid reason to kill this fast. Given we have a Jan Lokin, I think that should be kept - as a start for a transwiki on someone notable in another country. The J.b.m vranken is another story, the name of the article alone, allthough the ref http://juridischdagblad.nl/content/view/1732/50/ seems to be a good verification of the honorary doctorate from Leiden?  Greswik (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to load properly for me. Does it for anyone else? Rt . 19:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Rudget. STORMTRACKER   94  22:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I have lmoved the article to J.B.M. Vranken and cleaned it up somewhat. I also added a link to his list of publications. Vranken has many publications (over 300 including many books), was Advocate General at the Dutch Supreme Court, received an honorary doctorate (verified woith an article in the "Nederlands Juridisch Dagblad", and is a member of the Dutch Royal Academy of Sciences. All these things are verifiable by the independent sources provided (that is, if you read Dutch, which I do). Clearly and verifiably notable. --Crusio (talk) 07:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I only just now see that this AfD concerns 2 articles (that is not really good procedure, I feel). Lokin apparently is also a member of the KNAW (Dutch Royal Academy of Sciences) and therefore undoubtable also notable. I have no time now to do the same cleanup on Lokin as I didon Vranken, but I vote Keep on that one, too. --Crusio (talk) 07:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Keeping: Thanks for your evaluations to the articles I edited.

I have edited two articles, when I saw the article need to be improved or is considering to be deleted. I just followed the suggestions and regulations to change and improve. Actually the information in the article I edited was from the internet, so I added more relevant websites and tried to make the article as neutral as possible. The persons I edited are famous persons in the area of Law. So I think at this moment, the articles should be achieved the requirements.

Moreover, I think the "notable" should not be a standard to the article, as the requirement of "notable" is difficult to define. In my opinion, the persons in the article are famous and notable. Also if we wrote lots of notable information, then perhaps the article would be considered as not neutral.

Nevertheless, the articles nowadays should achieve all the requirements. Please click the relevant websites to check the information. Also the persons in the articles are famous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junwei fu (talk • contribs) 09:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Vranken per Crusio's improvements; the article now makes a clear and documented case for notability. Weak keep Lokin: the Royal Academy membership may be enough but it's the only thing there. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Strongly keep! both of them I edited should be kept, there are about 200 members among all the fields in the Royal Academy. No doubtful, there is a very strick selection to all the members and all the 200 members are notable enough. I strongly believe the articles should be kept. And I will edit more articles after christmas. Merry christmas to all of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junwei fu (talk • contribs) 20:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Strongly keep: In the article J.B.M. Vranken, the last sentence needs the citation "he was awarded the Royal Honour in the order of the Dutch Lion", actually the citation is from the reference 4. But I do not know how to edit it. Anybody who could help do it? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junwei fu (talk • contribs) 20:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * keep both per Crusio. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nom the articles look much better now. JuJube (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2007 (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.