Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Fritz Juengling


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Charles Fritz Juengling

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has referenciness, but it seems to be all smoke and mirrors. Once you strip out directories, genealogies, primary sources (X has been cited by Y, source: paper by Y citing X) you have a person who seems to fail WP:PROF on the grounds of lack of reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 00:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I came to basically the same conclusion as the nom a few days ago when I put a PROD on the article, which was subsequently taken down. The extensive list of sources just doesn't add up to WP:N. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete References consist of primary sources about a person with no credible claim of independent notability. Fails WP:ACADEMIC.  A search on Google Books turns up only a few primary sources (10) and no secondary ones discussing him.  KDS 4444  Talk  04:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Juengling is a well established phonological researcher and has been referenced in a number of articles and books. -Kbabej (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Another book Juengling has authored has been added, another book that has used him as a resource has been added, and the heading has been rewritten. Please review. -kbabej (talk) 11:47 14 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep. The "In Literature" section refers to several publications that make use of or reference to Juengling's work. I think we have to be careful not to introduce systematic bias against people who are notable within what might be considered a "niche" field of study. My recommendation is that this article be kept but cleaned up in the following ways: 1) put more specific emphasis on places in the phonological literature where Juengling and his work has been discussed and drawn upon by others in the field, 2) put more emphasis on positions, especially elected positions such as society chairs, that Juengling has held, and 3) clean up the language a little so that it is more neutral. As an example of this last point: "Juengling's language proficiency has enabled him to hold posts at...." sounds a little like it's selling the point, and could be simplified to "Juengling has held posts at...." If these changes are made, I believe this passes WP:ACADEMIC GregTStevens (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrScorch6200  (talk &#124; ctrb) 01:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. Simply publishing is not enough: the publications have to make an impact, and Google scholar says they have not (no citations). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Google scholar actually lists both of Juengling's books (he often published dropping the "Charles") and his inclusion in 'Focus on the USA' book.
 * Delete. No evidence of impact from GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete WIth or without "Charles", the citation record is way too meager to meet WP:Prof. --Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2014 (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.