Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axel Murswieck

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. No prejudice against renomination Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Murswieck[edit]

[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)

De-prodded, original concern was Doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria for WP:PROF, fails WP:GNG. Atlantic306's contest was deprod as worldcat shiws 852 library holdings which is an indicator of notability for authors however I don't think a mere number of entries constitutes significant coverage. SITH (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep having a large number of library holdings is used by experienced editors such as @DGG: to indicate that there must have been a fair number of reviews of the author's works in reliable sources that are offline if not online, we should not be ruled over by google as what should be included, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 01:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 12:49, 7 March 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.