Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jutta Burggraf

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Several of the 13 sources provided are clearly invalid. There are, however, some sources that do not fall under the criticism of the "delete" !voters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jutta Burggraf[edit]

Jutta Burggraf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as non-notable. No indication of notability whatever in article or sole reflink provided. [email protected] (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof on GS cites. GS cites are 4, 2, 2; we normally require many hundreds of cites to pass WP:Prof#C1. Falls woefully short. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    • Simple searches show notability. SL93 (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. SL93 (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which Wikipedia policy are you invoking here? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
WP:BIO except for the link to the Google Scholar search. The Google Scholar search just shows that she is a major scholarly writer. SL93 (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also doubt that she isn't notable because she published 20 books and wrote 70 works while being quoted repeatedly in books on Google Books. "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.". SL93 (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability does not arise just from publishing stuff. It arises from having that stuff noted by other people. As I mentioned before, we usually require many hundreds of cites to satisfy WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I'm not even basing it on criteria 1. I'm basing it on criteria 7 which is where the quote is from. SL93 (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are 3 authority file citations in the article, including the Library of Congress. To me, this means that various libraries contain her publications and deem her sufficiently notable to create authority records for her. Humbly submitted--FeanorStar7 (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Criteria 7 of WP:PROF is met with [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and [13]. SL93 (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The keep voters here (from the article rescue squad?) have presented no policy-based evidence that the article should be kept — being listed in a library catalog index certainly is not an argument for notability, and the passing mentions of her in books given by SL93 don't seem to me to indicate anything at all. The mere fact of publishing something (the only thing the article says about her) certainly is not good enough for WP:PROF and there is no other source of notability apparent in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one from the article rescue squadron has posted here. SL93 (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WoS shows no citations to papers (the GS ones mentioned above seem to be for books). While she does seem to have published many books, most are held by only a few institutions: this one is typical. Agricola44 (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per the evidence cited above by several "keep" !votes and the arguments given by the "delete" !votes. --Crusio (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Over a thousand Google book results. Looking through that, and what others have found and linked to already, it seems a lot of people consider this person's work notable enough to mention them. Google news has coverage of them, but every link I click on is hidden behind a paywall. Dream Focus 09:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If reliable externals are found that extensively cover this person I will reconsider but nothing presented here or in the article supports that. Keep per 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ,and meets prof, per, 7, 8, 9 ,10, 11 - and 1000 google book results is meaningless, you have to ask why don't these users add anything to the article? Without improvement I can not support.Off2riorob (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jutta_Burggraf&oldid=1070266177"