Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anke Ehlers


 * 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   keep. postdlf (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Anke Ehlers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability. Not a Professor nor evidence of scholarly impact. Gbawden (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Being a Fellow of the British Academy seems to meet WP:SCHOLAR #3. Google Scholar shows a lot of citations - hundreds of citations of many of her papers and a h-index of about 54 (if you trust its figures and my calculations). --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 22:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 22:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep on clear pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC).
 * I don't know where the nominator gets the idea from that the subject is not a professor. Both of the sources that were cited at the time of nomination describe her as such. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Along with the factors mentioned above, her Leopoldina and Academia Europaea memberships give her a triple pass of WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.