Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nico F. Declercq


 * 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. Being an autobiography is not a reason to delete on it's own; consensus regarding his notability as a professional lies strongly at keep.  Daniel Bryant  10:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Nico F. Declercq

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

does not meet requirements of WP:BIO Lunkwill 20:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't see fulfillment of requirements for creative professionals. Goodnightmush  Talk 21:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The two papers mentioned in the article, on Chichen Itza and on Epidaurus, seem to be pretty widely reported and cited. Seems to meet WP:PROF #3 Mwelch 21:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. He won an award that appears to be notable in his field. - Mgm|(talk) 08:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Though the term "numerous" should be removed and we should at list try to get a list of notable works. User:Dimadick
 * Delete Vanity. The subject and the user who created the article appear to be the same.  Alcuin 03:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't see that alone as reason to delete. WP:AUTO strongly discourages creating your article, but does not absolutely forbid it.  So long as the user is actually notable (and this one seems to be), then having other editors come in to clean up the article to make sure it's content is made free of WP:NPOV and WP:COI issues is a solution preferable to just deleting it. (In my opinion, of course.) Mwelch 03:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. One of the reasons I was inclined to AfD is that someone kept putting glowing statements on Epidaurus, Chichen Itza and the like. It looked very much like self-promotion. Lunkwill 19:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I see.  That's certainly an interesting additional dynamic.  I can certainly understand that concern.  I just a quick look through the article histories and I found these examples (perhaps there were others too; I only looked very quickly) which you reverted: "'The acoustics at Epidaurus is tremendous. It is as if speakers can be heard throughout the theater without any loss of loudness. These amazing effects are studied by famous acousticians, such as Declercq. It shows that the ancient Greeks had a broad scientific and technological knowledge and that they incorporated this knowledge into their wonderful constructions.'""'Chichen Itza is well known to acousticians for its special acoustic effects at the ball court and also at the El Castillo pyramid. A handclap is transformed into the chirp of a bird and footsteps are transformed into raindrops. Studies have been reported by Nico F. Declercq, David Lubman and others in J. Acoust. Soc. Am, Nature and National Geographic'" The former is especially problematic and seems particularly "promotional" of Declercq ("famous acousticians").  The latter is not as bad from a "promotional" standpoint, but it's also not well-written.  I'd hope a Ph.D. could do better, but certainly Declercq himself would have to be considered, at the least, a prime suspect with regard to question of who wrote the above.  Even if it's not him personally, it seems almost certain it's someone with WP:COI issues with regard to him, such as one of his students or mentees.  On the whole, given how widely reported and cited those two studies really were, I'm not sure I see anything wrong with each of them being mentioend in the respective articles. (Full disclaimer:  I know nothing about either Epidaurus or Chichen Itza, so that's a wholly uninformed opinion.) But I also don't see any need to throw Declercq's name out there into the middle of the article text like that.  How about a simple, brief mention &mdash; properly cited in the list of references &mdash; in each article, and then a talk page mention to the "promoter" (whomever it actually is) to please knock it off? Mwelch 07:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, the subject meets WP:BIO and appears to be notable within his field. Yamaguchi先生 01:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The references by reliable sources demonstrate that he's notable in his field. --Oakshade 08:56, 19 April 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.