Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jürgen Czarske

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. J04n(talk page) 12:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jürgen Czarske

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

Non-notable, reads like a CV, uncited BLP Tdslk (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails to show the subject meets any notability criteria.Mdtemp (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This person fails to meet any criteria in WP:BIO and his article should be deleted immediately. Newsjunky12 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Member of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians[reply]

Delete A previous Prod on grounds "Does not appear to pass notability criteria of WP:ACADEMIC" was deleted by the article creator, without comment but with the addition of papers jointly authored by the subject. But neither these nor a shared joint 3rd prize are enough to demonstrate individual notability. AllyD (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete We have a persistent problem with evaluating researchers employed by industry, who typically publish relatively few formal papers. Almost the only we the usually have is awards, and I don't see any here. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the awards are too local to confer notability, and I don't see anything else to use as a basis for keeping the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2013 (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.