Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Kuhnhenn

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Kuhnhenn[edit]

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

Article about a junior academic who doesn't appear to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) or WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON, tiny citation counts on Google scholar mean she does not yet pass WP:PROF#C1 and the article does not indicate any other source of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as far WP:Too soon. 5 cites on GS in a highly cited field when well over 1000 would be expected to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I would suggest waiting for the outcome of the deletion discussion on de.wiki: link. It it's deemed non notable over there, it would be a easy choice. Right now I'm on the fence. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: The German discussion has closed as a delete. However, the German Wikipedia appears to use different standards than ours, so even if the outcome were different I don't know what the relevance here would be, unless the Germans somehow turned up different sources than what we have already found, which they didn't. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2017 (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.