Deletion of Alfred Hartemink (2nd nomination)

Comment: per all the comments of others above. The subject clearly passes #C1 based on a combination of high citability, being an elected fellow of a scholarly society and an award from that society. Arguably passes #C3 and #C8 as well. GoogleScholar gives the subject the h-index of 42, which is impressive for a field with moderate citation rates. A 2013 articlehttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3807595/ (of which the subject is actually a co-author) analyzes citation data in soil science and notes that the median GoogleScholar citation index there is 15, with the 75-th quantile being 26. So the nominator's claim that "Google scholar gives him an low-average h-index for a professor in this discipline" is demionstrably false
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:PROF)

Comment: Very clear pass of rof. Does the 3-edit spa nominator have an axe to grind
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: It is true that the article appears to have been created by the subject. Thirteen years ago. It has had many other editors since then, most of whom were presumably not motivated by self-promotion. The only other argument made by the nomination is , specifically called out as something to avoid in deletion discussions. The citation record of the subject https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-ToX7x0AAAAJ, with 18 publications having over 100 citations and an h-index of 42, is well above our usual standards for #C1, and he also appears to pass #C3 (as a fellow of a major academic society) and #C8 (as editor-in-chief of a well-established journal). The unsigned spa nominator's claims that these criteria are not met have no actual justification
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:WAX||WP:PROF)