Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenny Wüstenberg

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. No need to further belabor this discussion. bd2412 T 19:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Wüstenberg

[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)

I don't think that this subject quite makes the cut. None of the provided sources are independent, and searching online all I found were some public letters that Wüstenberg co-signed. Most damning, however, is that Wüstenberg is only an assistant professor, with a Google-scholar h-index of 6, which is too low to meet WP:NACADEMIC for political science. I'm skeptical of the article's claim that Wüstenberg is "a leader in uniting the emerging field of memory studies", as a Scholar search for "memory studies" returns relevant results dating back to the 90s with hundreds of citations each (in some cases, thousands). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably too soon. Only one significant book. Journal articles & articles in collections do not seem all that important. But h index is totally irrelevant in the humanities and in those fields of social science where people publish like the humanities. It only works in fields of higher citation density. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found and added to the article three reviews and two award shortlists for her book. If there were another book with a similar reception I'd switch to keep. But it's one book, not enough by itself for WP:AUTHOR, and the other material doesn't appear to rise to the level of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too would have voted keep, but her h-index is too low, and she is not a member of any societies. If she would have been a member or fellow of the German Academy of Sciences then the h-index might be overlooked, but as its stands, too soon and delete applies.--Biografer (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 103 cites on GS not remotely enough to pass WP:Prof#C1. Try again in ten years. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per DavidEppstein's rationale. Looks like classic case of WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2019 (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.