Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pim Haselager


 * 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 no consensus. with borderline delete. Since this AfD has been running for more than a month now, not sure if re-listing is going to give us any other result. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Pim Haselager

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:PROF, WP:GNG or any other aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. Woring academic but seems nothing beyond that. This has been tagged for notability for over 8 years; hopefully we can resolve it now. Boleyn (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Tentative Keep -- His Cognitive science and folk psychology: the right frame of mind  (from an academic publisher SAGE Publications) is held by 200 libraries, which may or may not be sufficient (WorldCat identities). Would be nice to see some reviews of his works. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. A GS h-index of 18 is probably enough to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete in this case as the 200 libraries is still not significant and not in this specific field, his citations also show nothing significant and with there finally not being an honorary or otherwise special professorship, I'm not seeing convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  04:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Delete All of the sources are written by the subject. Generally, to establish notability, we look for references about the subject. He is also not "known for" either of the things listed, although he has a vague connection to EEC. I'm on the fence because of his h-index and the non-peacockiness of this article. Jergling (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   15:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Peacockiness, which I don't dispute, can be reduced by editing. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC).


 * Delete. Journal publication citation rates not high enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF. A single academic book with no reviews listed (I can't check library holdings because worldcat is currently down for me) not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR. And no other notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. on the basis of citations. An article with 230 gScholar citations  and others of 74, 49 retc. The book is in 185 libraries, which is not spectacular, but sufficient.  DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not pass GNG and you really need to stretch it to have him pass WP:ACADEMIC #1. One article with 200 cites on GScholar should not really by itself cut it, especially when he's way down the list of 11 co-authors for that article. Surely, even 3000 (and counting) citations for "Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC" will not buy a Wikipedia article for every single one of its 1000 authors... Also is there a single reliable (even if it's not in depth) independent source that could be used to actually source the article (which should be the point)? Because I'm not seeing it. No longer a penguin (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2016 (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.