Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Hartemink

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 wasNo consensus seems that the article can be kept if rewritten. →AzaToth 16:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alfred Hartemink

Alfred Hartemink (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article was created by Ahartemink (talk · contribs), presumable the article's subject. This creates an obvious conflict of interest. There are a number of claims to notability (Hartemink's involvement in the International Year of Planet Earth, for instance), but I don't think they are sufficient to meet WP:BIO. AecisBrievenbus 00:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletions. AecisBrievenbus 00:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. He appears to pass WP:N and WP:BIO, as "His publications include 5 books and many papers in international[y] refereed journals". This should be enough to pass all relevant notability policies. It should be reviewed by an experienced editor to remove possible conflicts of interest and POV, however. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep- Meets WP:N based on his published work. Almost meets WP:BIO but no independent bios or independent articles on him. WP:COI is an issue but the article seems to be very neutral unlike most WP:COI issues. - Gtstricky (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete or at least total rewrite No offense to Mr. Hartemink, but I totally think that if we keep ignoring WP:COI like this it will have a grave impact on the neutrality of Wikipedia. Whether or not he did a good job in regards to NPOV it is irrelevant. Nor is whether he meets WP:BIO. Both can probably be answered in the affirmative. But if WP:COI is never enforced, what's the point of having WP:COI in the first place? --Kensuke Aida (talk) 06:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment When citing policy it is helpful to know what you are citing. WP:COI states Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is. We are in fact interested primarily in the end result, as we have few tools to prevent COI in the first place and detecting it it nearly impossible without tells. --Dhartung | Talk 12:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, does seem to have some well-cited papers and reasonably prominent positions. Article is informal and needs cleanup, though. --Dhartung | Talk 12:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I say keep because he does appear to be notable. BUT I do feel that a person should not write their own article. I would say keep but I would really like to see someone else take a hand in expanding the article that is non-partisan.--Pmedema (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The subject does appear to be notable, per Wikipedia's criteria on biographies and Wikipedia:Notability. His papers are used as cited sources, so it would pass the notability criteria. --Solumeiras talk 20:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Publishing many papers is the job description of an academic, the true notability is not shown in the article, and this is not supported by the fact that the main editor appears to be the topic. Arnoutf (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep only if rewritten — Per ISRIC profile, subject may have sufficient notability. However, as written, the article is does not meet Wikipedia standards. WP:COI is a concern. The article's sources need to be independent of the subject. — ERcheck (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2007 (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.