Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joost Platje


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Joost Platje

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not every academic should have his own article. He has done no special research or findings. The user that started this article, started it before on the Dutch version of wikipedia where the article has been deleted for the same reasons. Knowalles (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I have tried to find some impact from his papers but have found nothing major. He fails WP:PROF on all points. Polargeo (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. GS cites 5, 3, 2, 1 that's all. Fails all categories of WP:Prof. Article created far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC).
 * KeepThis is a revenge nomination from a user on the Dutch Wikipedia with whom I have a severe dispute. The dispute is stretching that far that he calls every edit from me he doesn't like sabotage and an attempt to start an editwar. Eddylandzaat (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. A recent Ph.D. with an academic record that, like most recent Ph.D.s, doesn't demonstrate the impact needed to pass WP:PROF #1. And what other reason is there to keep this? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wos shows 1 paper cited 3 times (h index = 1) using query "Author=(Platje J*) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" – perhaps about what you'd expect from a fairly recent PhD. This article is little more than the guy's CV. With all due respect, the sole "keep" vote thus far contains no substance, just finger-pointing. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Based on the arguments I can agree with deletion. But the fact that this is a revenge-nomination makes it hard to swallow. Eddylandzaat (talk) 17:59, 8 January 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.