Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jona Lendering


 * 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. John254 00:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Jona Lendering

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

A running dispute over the notability of this Dutch history writer has led to an unhelpful series of page moves and some unpleasant comments on the Talk page, and doesn't show any signs of resolution, so I'm bringing the issue here to find out whether outside editors think the article ought to be kept. My recommendation is to keep the article. The English-language coverage received by Jona Lendering, most of which is probably cited in the article, is admittedly limited. However, I believe that Lendering is demonstrably a notable author within his home country of the Netherlands. Two of his books were featured in Quality Non-Fiction from Holland, which highlights selected Dutch non-fiction for an international audience. Four of his books have received large numbers of reviews in the Dutch media, including multiple national newspapers; this is based on a list on his website, but the accuracy of the references isn't in dispute. There were 18 Dutch-language reviews simply for his 2004 biography of Alexander the Great. Lendering has also been interviewed by several Dutch periodicals. In summary, I think that the "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" criterion in WP:BIO is amply met. There is every reason to believe that a reader of Dutch could write an informative and well-balanced article about Lendering as a popular history writer, and the current article based on English-language sources has no issues of bias or inaccuracy that would justify deletion in the meantime.

Some of the proponents of deletion have stated that notability within the Netherlands is not sufficient for an article in the English Wikipedia. This seems to me an advocacy of the systematic bias that we have a WikiProject devoted to reducing. Other editors have suggested rewriting the article as one about Lendering's website or an organisation he founded. However, judged by identifiable independent coverage, I can't see that either is demonstrably more notable than his books. EALacey (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think WP:PROF will apply here rather than general WP:BIO.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Possibly, but although Lendering has apparently taught at a university, it appears that his published works have mainly been aimed at a general audience. This reviewer writes that one book "is manifestly written for the general public, though its use of Near Eastern sources may makes it in some respects also attractive for a more specialized readership". EALacey (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per nom, clearly meets WP:BIO. WP:PROF says: "This guideline is independent from the other notability guidelines, such as WP:N, WP:BIO WP:MUSIC, etc.: it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other notability guidelines." Therefore, meeting WP:BIO is sufficient. --Crusio (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —John Z (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator has supplied sufficient evidence of Lendering's notability. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: per nom, and as he pointed out, Lendering's works mainly aimed at general audience. Meets WP:BIO.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would prefer move/merge to/with livius.org. WP:PROF is not met here. WP:CREATIVE possibly, but that's yet to be established. The livius.org website otoh would seem to satisfy WP:WEB. --dab (𒁳) 21:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment it is worth noting that this is an offshoot of the Kaveh Farrokh notability dispute. Farrokh is an Iranian nationalist who has written two popular history books and appeared on television a couple of times. Lendering has criticized Farrokh's book, so the Iranian patriots are now saying, if Farrokh isn't notable, how is Lendering notable? And I have to agree. If "has written a couple of popular history books" is sufficient to pass WP:BIO (a dedicated article on the author's biography!), Farrokh would pass as well as Lendering. --dab (𒁳) 21:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The difference being that here there are independent reviews of multiple books. --Crusio (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, I would say speedily, but I see the point of a greater consensus. Nominator was right to bring this here for discussion and I accept the points in the nomination as those I rely on to keep the article Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom's excellent reasoning.-Proactive primrose (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC) — Proactive primrose (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * considering the nom brought this for confirmation of his view that it should be kept.... DGG (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Obviously an ironic !vote. I assume "per nom" here means "keep"! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, it's just a copy-pasted !vote froma different Afd. Edward321 (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I love drive by events,. I've mentioned it on the user's talk page and suggested they come back and read the nomination. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep meets the guidelines as an author or a professor. The suggestion that notability must be in an english speaking country, or shown by sources in English, is against the basic principal of all encyclopedias, especially this one. DGG (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the nominator and most everyone else. Edward321 (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. In addition to the points made above, there is also evidence of independent media coverage of the subject that is truly international, with articles in media outlets in the UK, USA and Iran.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. yes negative outlet. It seems that he enjoys the nagative publicity about him. But still he is not a widely known figure. Despite his controversial stances on the Iranian history, he is even unknown in Iran and travels there frequently This means that he is an unknown figure and no one thinks of him highly.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

* Delete. However I personally would love to have evnue to discuss Lendering for certain reason. It is fair to say that he is not notable and should get deleted. He is an archivist, which has written a modest number of non- peer reviewed books, in a relatively very small language which is only spoken by some 16 million people in the Netherlands and 6 Millions in Belgium, and no more than half a million elsewhere (suriname(. This means that his books are not written for a big audience.In addition the reotort in rozanehmagzine shows that how meagre his level of knowledge is. I would say deleting him means that we do not waste our time discussing this minor figure.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * keep or merge. I do not want to delete it. it is fun to have a venue to discuss this guy's action and biased views as well as his agenda, however he is not notable.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:44, 12 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.