Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold van der Heijden

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harold van der Heijden[edit]

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

Delete - article was obviously started by the person the article is about User:Hhstudy [1] to promote his commercial product. JunoBeach (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 5. Snotbot t • c » 17:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article was obviously started by the person the article is about User:Hhstudy [2] to promote his commercial product. JunoBeach (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Described as "world's leading authority in endgame studies" by British Chess Magazine [3]. Article is unsourced, pov puffery and needs total rewrite from neutral viewpoint, but the subject seems notable. A lot of non-English sources. Tigerboy1966 01:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep per Tigerboy1966. He is notable as a chess writer, and not as a biology WP:PROF (low citations number for his biology papers on google scholar). Tradedia (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was likely started by its subject, but I think he is notable in chess composition. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article needs work, but subject meets notability criteria. Was also the subject of a recent Chessbase article. Sasata (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2012 (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.