Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annette Beck-Sickinger


 * 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. WP:SNOW keep - some of the delete/redirect votes didn't consider notability under WP:PROF and article now doesn't solely focus on the incident. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 21:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Annette Beck-Sickinger

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

CSD A7 twice removed by creator so in  the light of the sources rather thna restore the CSD for a third time, the community  should decide. A pleathora of reliable sources all reporting  the same incident (WP:1E), interest in which will  probably soon blow over if it has not already (WP:NOTNEWS). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Leipzig University internship controversy. This story had spread over at least 5 pages, the actual specific WP page, the Beck-Sickinger BLP, Vigilante (which I have reverted), Germany–India relations and at Leipzig University. (Where about 30 of the 45 references on the page are now about this issue wp:UNDUE!) It seems the women is not notable, except for this event. The creator of this BLP, only edits on WP have been on this issue at all three related pages. The addition to Vigilante was also theirs.  See  - 220  of  Borg 07:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete  per WP:1E, alternativley redirect to Leipzig University internship controversy. Amortias (T)(C) 18:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What Amortias said. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * First choice delete, second choice keep and rewrite. With an H-index of 37 and a reasonably fleshed-out article at de:Annette_Beck-Sickinger, she has a case for notability independent of the controversy. Redirecting her name to this flash-in-the-pan media fuss about a single bad decision seems inappropriate. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added some actual information about the subject's career, for the record, and removed the excess material already more-than-amply discussed in the controversy article. I didn't notice them before, but the categories the article was previously placed in are a clear BLP violation. First choice is still delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I stumbled upon this in the AFD list; a controversy I had not heard of before, but User:Opabinia regalis did a good job of editing (the article has now been edited into) into pretty good shape. The controversy shold not take over the article, but it was widely-covered, and she played an active role, this is not a case of an innocent bystander getting dragged into a media/political thing.  It certainly contributes to notability.  Furthermore, it is pretty unusual for a professor at a major university, with significant prizes to her credit to be deleted.  Especially a bench scientist with good citation numbers.  so many AFDs fall into a grey area, but this widely-published research scientist whose job-related action created a controversy seems like an obvious KEEP to me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and stop trying to downplay her racism. People would not try to rewrite an article on George Wallace to primarily focus on his early career when he was known for championing the poor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment To call Beck-Sickinger's racism "one event" is to ignore articles like this that show she has used her racist attitudes at other times to justify the exclusion of Indian students.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (wow, I had no idea)E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Two significant awards and a full professorship at a major university is enough. Redless of her role in a non-scientific controversy, she;s notable. Content of the article here is a separate question. I;'m a little puzzled that, on basically the same arguments as my own, comes to an opposite conclusion.  DGG ( talk ) 06:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I oppose the redirect suggestions that preceded me more strongly than I feel about keeping or deleting. I agree that she's eligible for an article by WP:PROF standards, but this is an otherwise low-profile BLP that was created as a borderline attack page, continues to attract disparaging commentary, and links to an extremely long article on the controversy that is littered with dubious sources and MRA-tinged WP:SYNTH. I suppose keeping the article at least presents those searching for her name with some context. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:PROF easily, with a h-index of over 40. Agreed that some WP:BLP issues need to be looked at. -- 120.17.55.37 (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously notable as a member of the Leopoldina (WP:PROF #3). Article now is mainly about her, not the incident covered by an additional article, so I see no reason for deletion. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PROF #C1 (heavily cited pubs) and #C3 (Leopoldina). The controversy now occupies a balanced proportion of the article rather than overwhelming it as it did before, so there is much less of an issue of BIO1E and NOTNEWS. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep with thanks to Opabinia regalis for the work to improve the article.  Subject meets notability guidelines.  The article still needs improvement but deserves a place in the encyclopedia. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 17:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment May I recommend to withdraw the nomination in the light of the article's development? Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 08:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep As things stand, the individual gained global notoriety for the incident and less for her scientific contributions. So this must be kept in mind when article WEIGHT is analysed. The article needs to be monitored so that the page does not become a 'hate-page'. 16:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep this article about a full professor of some distinction. If there is too much weight to the controversy, that is grounds for trimming it, and not deleting an article about a scholar.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2015 (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.