Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John H.A.L. de Jong

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) Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 13:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John H.A.L. de Jong[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ACADEMIC.

The closest criterium is that the subject has a "special chair" (nlwiki), which unlike a named chair, is a temporary and usually part-time position and funded by a company he works for. NM 22:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Language, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 on GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
@Xxanthippe is that a lot for linguistics? I wouldn't have expected so. -- asilvering (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you are welcome to produce data for other linguists. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I honestly can't tell whether this number of citations suggests 'significant impact'. De Jong's user profile on Google Scholar lists 31 articles with ten or more citations, including 5 with 100 or more citations. For comparison, Paul Boersma's and Theo van Leeuwen's user pages each list more than 100 articles with ten or more, and Marc van Oostendorp and Elly van Gelderen each around 60. (All are Category:Linguists from the Netherlands.) Lal Zimman, a linguist from the United States, has a similar number of Google Scholar citations as de Jong, but Zimman has also won the Ruth Benedict Prize in anthropology. For what it is worth, I am a linguist who had not heard of de Jong, but I am not involved in language assessment, which appears to be de Jong's specialization. Cnilep (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the effort to find citations for other linguists. The candidate holds his own among those others and in my view satisfies WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Keep by PROF. Nominator and subsequent authors only complained about academic notability and never invoked the GNG, where the problem could be. Therefore sticking to PROF as the criterium. That part is met. gidonb (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around specific elements of WP:NPROF as they relate to this individual would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NPROF criteria 2 and 6: (2) because he received the Distinguished Achievement Award from Cambridge/ILTA (reference in article); and (6) he was President of the European Association of Language Testing and Assessment.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep that award puts him over the bar. The folks giving it to him look real enough. Hobit (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.