Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Gotthelf Immanuel Friedlaender


 * 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.. The article was not edited during the 3 weeks of AfD, which obviates the "provisional keep"s. Don't take it personally, Carboxen; consider writing about more notable topics instead. Sandstein (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Carl Gotthelf Immanuel Friedlaender

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability is not established. The article's subject was a geologist and a professor, published some works, but was not specially notable or influential. It seems that all (of the few) google hits for his name are Wikipedia mirrors, with the sole exception of his bio on the webpage of the university he worked for. Damiens .rf 19:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Keep: Might be hard to establish his impact and notability just from google, since most of his work was presumably done mid-20th century. I did a quick google book search, found better citations for his father Immanuel:    , but some minor ones for him:    . But perhaps more problematic is that his earlier publications are in German. So presumably his greatest impact would be in German Geology work and I'm not sure how to search those printed periodicals from the mid 1900's. Then again, it's not our job. The article author must establish the influence of the subject. Agree that it is not currently established. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * From seeing the additional publications in GeoRef, and doing my best to read German via altavista, I'm getting the sense that he was an expert in alpine quartz study half a century ago. Secondary citation searches aren't possible for that period, using the databases, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt now. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Very weak keep From worldcat, 5 singificant publication on Swiss (not German) geology. chairman at a university. Note: not included in Web of Science--the early part does not includes the European geology journals he published in. Further checking should take into account the alternate spellings, Friedlander and Friedlănder DGG (talk) 05:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete per Owlmonkey. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (Article Author Note) - I have only now seen this discussion and AfD. I will check into it myself a bit more now. Please note that the research publications database that covers the field of Geology best is not ISI Web of Science, but GeoRef. Web of Science is strongly biased in favor of certain disciplines, and types and languages of publications, and only certain subfields of Geology are reasonably represented (like geophysics and geochemistry). I will check when I am back in my office. Regards, --Carboxen (talk) 03:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I Started compiling more information here, in support of the subject. Getting late in the Midwest now, g'nite compadres! --Carboxen (talk) 05:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Provisional Keep, based on comments of the article creator above. Should be given some time to gather references to establish notability.  It might also be worth talking to the German Wikipedia embassy to see if they can turn anything up.  If nothing comes up over the next few days, then delete the article.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Provisional keep. Agree with Lankiveil -- creator should be given enough time to provide evidence of notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 00:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Some references have been provided, but ultimately I'm not convinced that he's more notable than the average academic. As far as I can tell, he's just a fairly unexceptional geologist, which isn't enough to satisfy WP:PROF. Terraxos (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Dalhousie piece doesn't really establish notability; it's mostly not about him at all, and when it is about him it's mostly negative (the other faculty being unhappy with his administrative skills and the outgoing students having problems in the field because of not having learned what they should have from his classes) and possibly biased. In the absence of anything else to base a bio on, I think it's better not to have one at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (Article Author Note) Look guys, I have a 7day-14h academic faculty day job and a disabled family member. I have only just started compiling a rebuttal. What irks me here is that independently of actual subject outcome, you cannot assume immediate response and daily logons from every author. If you want to be that inquisitional and jump to conclusions, then you must have a lot more time than I have. The world will be blinded from having to see that article another few days. Fine, take it all off, and potentially loose a senior publishing scientist/science historian - not from the deletion but from the treatment here. --Carboxen (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)-
 * Delete. Just not notable enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2008 (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.