Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Nyssen

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) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 02:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Nyssen[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)

Article relies entirely on primary self-published sources and sources that do not mention the subject of the article. The bulk of it reads like a CV rather than a BLP, and I do not believe the subject meets the criteria in WP:NACADEMIC. The original creator and main editor of the article was blocked as a sockpoppet of the article's subject. WMSR (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WMSR (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WMSR (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. WMSR (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In spite of some of the article's obvious shortcomings, I think it should be kept because the subject meets two criteria listed at WP:PROF. Criterion 1 ('research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline') is met because the subject has a high citation count on Google scholar of around 15,000 overall citations and an h-index of 66. Criterion 5 ('named chair or equivalent') is met because he is a full professor at Ghent. As has been discussed many times in AfDs like this, a full professorship in a good European university is the equivalent of a named chair in the United States. I should add that cutting unsuitable material in an otherwise notable article is always an option. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I updated all of the articles's citations to add authors, dates, translations of non-English titles, etc. to better help anyone evaluating this article. Platonk (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass WP:NPROF #5. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't necessarily buy the WP:NPROF C5 argument, but agree that the citation record looks like a pass of WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Seems noteworthy enough under WP:NPROF C1. However, despite some good editing by @Platonk, there is still more wrong than right with the article as it stands, and thus would suggest to WP:DRAFTIFY to rectify. Poojean (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thee is no justification for draftification. The purpose of draftification is to raise an article to a standard that would passAfD., and since the subject does, improvements can be made just as well in mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 4 December 2021 (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.