Deletion of Nico F. Declercq

Comment: I don't see that alone as reason to delete.   strongly discourages creating your article, but does not absolutely forbid it.  So long as the user is actually notable (and this one seems to be), then having other editors come in to clean up the article to make sure it's content is made free of  and  issues is a solution preferable to just deleting it. (In my opinion, of course
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Autobiography (WP:AUTO||WP:NPOV||WP:COI)

Comment: I see.  That's certainly an interesting additional dynamic.  I can certainly understand that concern.  I just a quick look through the article histories and I found these examples (perhaps there were others too; I only looked very quickly) which you reverted: "The acoustics at Epidaurus is tremendous. It is as if speakers can be heard throughout the theater without any loss of loudness. These amazing effects are studied by famous acousticians, such as Nico F. Declercq|Declercq. It shows that the ancient Greeks had a broad scientific and technological knowledge and that they incorporated this knowledge into their wonderful constructions.""Chichen Itza is well known to acousticians for its special acoustic effects at the ball court and also at the El Castillo pyramid. A handclap is transformed into the chirp of a bird and footsteps are transformed into raindrops. Studies have been reported by Nico F. Declercq, David Lubman and others in http://scitation.aip.org/vsearch/servlet/VerityServlet?KEY=JASMAN&ONLINE=YES&smode=strresults&sort=chron&maxdisp=25&threshold=0&possible1=declercq&possible1zone=author&OUTLOG=NO&viewabs=JASMAN&key=DISPLAY&docID=2&page=1&chapter=0 J. Acoust. Soc. Am, http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=1446 Nature and http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1206_021206_TVMayanTemple.html National Geographic" The former is especially problematic and seems particularly "promotional" of Declercq ("famous acousticians").  The latter is not ''as'' bad from a "promotional" standpoint, but it's also not well-written.  I'd hope a Ph.D. could do better, but certainly Declercq himself would have to be considered, at the least, a prime suspect with regard to question of who wrote the above.  Even if it's not him personally, it seems almost certain it's someone with  issues with regard to him, such as one of his students or mentees.  On the whole, given how widely reported and cited those two studies really were, I'm not sure I see anything wrong with each of them being mentioend in the respective articles. (Full disclaimer:  I know ''nothing'' about either Epidaurus or Chichen Itza, so that's a wholly uninformed opinion.) But I also don't see any need to throw Declercq's name out there into the middle of the article text like that.  How about a simple, brief mention &mdash; properly cited in the list of references &mdash; in each article, and then a talk page mention to the "promoter" (whomever it actually is) to please knock it off
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: the subject meets  and appears to be notable within his field.  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yamaguchi%E5%85%88%E7%94%9F&action=edit&amp;section=new Yamaguchi先生
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)