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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pim Haselager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC, as tagged since July 2008. The first AfD failed to have consensus, so here is a 2nd AfD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 19:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not pass general notability guidelines. Scorpion293 (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete Unsourced BLP. With just one book, no major positions or achievements in the article, I do not see how this person would be notable right now. Maybe some day. Enlighten me, source the article, and I will reconsider. gidonb (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - remarkably little output in over 20 years' work, would not be granted tenure in a North American university. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC) Please DGG, can you enlighten us? Bearian (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Research output and citation record [1] are quite reasonable for this stage of career. It is not clear if the subject holds a tenured position or not, but that is irrelevant to notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete -- the article survived the first AfD, but is not better for it. Let's put the issue to rest and delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging people who participated in the previous discussion: @Boleyn: @K.e.coffman: @Xxanthippe: @SwisterTwister: @Jergling: @David Eppstein: @DGG: @No longer a penguin: @Yamamoto Ichiro:. – Joe (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for same reasons as first AfD (borderline citation record, nothing else). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsourced BLP. It has been tagged as not meeting the notability guidelines for academics since 2008. Bradv 17:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. GS h-index of 19 [2] is distinctly high by citation standards of pure philosophy (but maybe not so high for neuro-philosophy, which is bio-med, if that is the field). Passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • @Xxanthippe: I'd agree that it's high for philosophy, but most of his publications are in cognitive science journals. – Joe (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the citations above themselves only have a high of 232, not nearly enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom, unsourced WP:BLP, and overarching WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2017 (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.