Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nico Nagelkerke

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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Nagelkerke

[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)

This article (a stub) was started four years ago but since then no work has been done on it. I have started a discussion of the academic notability of this researcher on its talk page, and again, here. Richard Gill (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Richard Gill (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Appears to be highly cited, including one with over 6300 cites [1]. Seems to be a pretty clear pass of WP:NPROF#c1 even if it is a stub. Curbon7 (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]
That is 6300 citations of a short note on a technical issue which led to "Nagelkerke R2" being a standard item in some statistical packages used in epidemiology. If this topic is important, then Nagelkerke is certainly a notable scholar, and there should also be a Wikipedia article on "generalisations of R2 to logistic regression". (There are several competing definitions of R2 in logistic regression; Nagelkerke R2 is used in SPSS, McFadden's R2 in STATA). Apart from this item, his citation pattern is typical for a senior biostatistician working his whole career in medical school, supplying the p-values for research in many parts of medicine and epidemiology. It's highly professional, laudable, and necessary work. But I can think of plenty of biostatisticians with evidently greater and wider impact who are missing from Wikipedia, for instance, Danish biostatistician Niels Keiding (RIP). Citation counts and H indices (age index!) are not everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics [NB I'm the one who made this proposal, but I'm neutral myself.] [Presently veering toward "Keep"] Richard Gill (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, highly cited and meets PROF C1. --Mvqr (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Much cited and meets WP:NPROF C1. gidonb (talk) 05:38, 19 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.