Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan te Nijenhuis


 * 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) — VersaceSpace  🌃 04:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Jan te Nijenhuis

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

Not notable enough to have a stand alone biography article, the article has been a stub since 2018 consisting of two lines. The second source looks dead, the third source is unreliable. Jan te Nijenhuis publishes racist pseudoscience for the Mankind Quarterly and the only other main journal he has published in is the Intelligence (journal) which also has a history of publishing eugenics and racist pseudoscience and fringe stuff peddling the Spearman's hypothesis. The third source on the article was written by Michael Woodley (this is the white supremacist who was recently exposed in the New York Times ). Nijenhuis and Woodley have co-authored papers in fringe journals so it is hardly an independent or neutral source. In conclusion I am not seeing enough reliable sources for this guy to have an article at Wikipedia. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. This person is not a notable academic, and most of their published work is in pseudo journals. 2603:8081:8040:3186:341D:DE51:533A:925B (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. He seems to be widely known and quoted for his research claiming a decline in intelligence and (counter to the scientific consensus) claims that a significant factor in this supposed decline, in western countries, is genetic and linked to immigration from other parts of the world. We don't have to believe these racist theories to recognize that he might be notable for his work in this area. However, per WP:FRINGE, our article needs to state this all clearly, not merely to say that he is a psychologist. He is well cited, so he has a case for WP:PROF, but I think the case for #C7 (influence on the non-academic world) may be stronger. I found multiple sources in apparently-reliable publications on this:
 * Editorials on his work on race and intelligence: ,
 * Explainer on his research in a science-communication web magazine:
 * Academic articles published in direct response to his work, with his name in the title:, , ,.
 * —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Very weak keep Per the source discussion above, seems to pass notability. I don't agree with much of anything he spouts, but so long as we discuss it using NPOV, it's fine for here on wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per above. There are additional sources on and beyond. No doubt that he is a well covered expert in his field. The fact that he is provocative (still a positive frame) doesn't seem to damage his notability either. gidonb (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2022 (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.