Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacobus P. van der Weele


 * 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. weak delete is still delete... maybe better to start from beginning some time later if it shows necessary. Tone 21:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Jacobus P. van der Weele

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Appears to fail WP:ACADEMIC. No claims to notability. A PROD tag was removed by the article's creator. Woogee (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Citability, per GoogleScholar is rather modest. Nothing else in the record indicates passing WP:PROF. Also, the lede paragraph appears to be a verbatim copy of, raising possible copyvio issues. Nsk92 (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Nom. - I originally proded the article as there was nothing to indicate it met WP:ACADEMIC. noq (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Searching GS for "J. P. van der Weele" (as used in his publications), as did Nsk92, I find that GS cites are all over the place but I get cites of 40, 40, 22, 19, 18, 17 with h index about 11. There might be some double counting. Could somebody do a search on WoS, which is not accessible to me at present? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC).
 * Comment Article makes no claim of notability for this scholar; how did he advance human knowledge? Abductive  (reasoning) 04:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've reworded to avoid the copyvio, but the article badly needs proper references. On GS, if I filter out papers not by him, I get citations 40, 22, 19, 18, 17, 11, 7, for a h-index of 7, which is rather borderline. -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Citation record is not so good then. Quality of article is poor too. 07:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC).
 * Indeed. I didn't make the article any better, I just made it legal. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. Fails WP:PROF. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Fails WP:PROF. I have to agree with the above. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2010 (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.