Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William J. van Ooij

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William J. van Ooij[edit]

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

William J. van Ooij (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG, and does not appear to meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 12:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a quick fail of WP:PROF. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn’t look like an NPROF pass to me. Mccapra (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - note to those who are checking for sources on van ooij - make sure to look for variations of his name. 'van ooij' and 'vanooij' and 'ooij' have all been used. Also, sometimes he went by 'Wim' other times 'William'.

Regarding the WP:NPROF checklist, not sure how anyone who has done even a cursory check can say that van ooij fails the criteria. here is a detailed analysis:

1 The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
van Ooij wrote "the book" on anti-corrosion surface treatments. Google scholar shows that his top 10 publications are each cited more than 300-400 times [1]. Is there anyone else in the corrosion / surface treatment field with bigger impact?
2 The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
the Melvin Mooney Distinguished Technology Award award, which van ooij received, is a highly prestigious academic award/honor at national/international level. His article is part of a series of Mooney winners.
3 The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).
NA
4 The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
see criterion #1. van ooij's work is highly cited in the field of corrosion. He also was founding editor of the journal of adhesion science and technology, and founder of International Congress on Adhesion Science and Technology. I will add this info with cite to the article.
5 The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
NA
6 The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
NA
7 The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
van Ooij co-founded Ecosil, a company that provides anti-corrosion surface treatments.
8 The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
van ooij was founding editor of the journal of adhesion science and technology.

Bottom line: van ooij easily meets 5 of the 8 criteria. Surely that is sufficient?! AresLiam (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • On reflection this could have been closed as no consensus leaning keep, but giving those who opined 'delete' earlier a chance to respond. Daniel (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient in-depth coverage to establish notability. This article doesn’t meey WP:GNG or WP:BASIC, let alone NPERSON. Serratra (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The relevant guideline is WP:NPROF, which is separate. --Mvqr (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Mvqr, it's just a sock who trolls AfDs with no actual interest in doing the work. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AresLiam's WP:NPROF analysis. Jfire (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AresLiam's analysis where the subject person clearly fails WP:NACADEMIC. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    confused. are you claiming that to pass WP:NACADEMIC one must meet more than 5 of the 8 criteria? My conclusion, based on analysis WP:NACADEMIC, was keep. AresLiam (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As per your analysis - 1) He is co-author of the books and 4) not the fact. Your point 6 fails. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    take a closer look at criterion #1: goto google scholar, then click on van ooij's most cited publication. then click 'cited by'. On the first page of results citing van ooij, I do not find a single self citation. These are all other researchers citing his work. repeat this for his 2nd most cited work, same story. 3rd most cited work, same story. This is a person who is clearly highly regarded / notable in his field and not dependent on self citation. This exercise also speaks to criterion #4. Clearly, van ooij's impact is central to the field of study. AresLiam (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Twinkle1990 please don't vote twice, you already voted above in the first vote at 12:59, 22 January 2023. --Mvqr (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops sorry. I didn't notice that I have voted already. Kindly redact the duplicate. Twinkle1990 (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • just added two more cites to the article. van ooij was cited in the US EPA presidential green chemistry awards + ohio board of regents tech transfer report for 2006. It seems absurd to me that a person can succeed at creating a technology and a successful company that eliminates carcinogens from many workplaces, can get recognized by the EPA, and then is judged to not pass wikipedia's notability criterion. To paraphrase the Monty Python sketch: “An argument should be a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition... It should not be merely the | automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says." AresLiam (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_J._van_Ooij&oldid=1137748144"