Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Häberl


 * 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 speedy delete, due to 's comments. I have no opinion on notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Charles Häberl

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable. Fails WP:ACADEMIC BMK (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete According to Google Scholar, his research is not widely cited by other academics. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This article has been around for a very long time, and it's a personal embarrassment to me. As a testament to its lack of notability in a Wikipedian context, it has been repeatedly vandalized and almost never updated or revised. As a consequence, it is not only hilariously out of date, it is factually inaccurate. Even though a brief glimpse at my Talk page will quickly reveal the highly personal reason for which this article is being nominated for deletion, I'd consider its removal a blessing since it is always awkward for me when people ask what my parents were thinking when they gave me the middle name "Guntram" (it's not, it's "George," and I'm not sure why that is relevant anyway). I'd disagree, though, that Google Scholar doesn't show that my research is widely cited (to give just one example, my recent monograph, published in 2009, already has at least 12 citations) and Academia.edu routinely ranks me in the Top 1% of the 37 million or so Academics on that platform. Additionally, in 2012, the Board of Trustees gave me its annual "Award for Scholarly Excellence" in recognition for my work on endangered languages, and the American Academy in Berlin has only just awarded me its prestigious Berlin Prize for 2016, which strikes me as technically notable. For these reasons, regardless of whether I as a person am "notable" or not within the context of Wikipedia, I would consider it a personal favor to me if you would delete it on my behalf. Thanks! Chuck Haberl (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Since you edited the article in the past with your User:Leo Caesius account, I would assume at some point you were interested in keeping it maintained. You do know that there are procedures available for accounts with a conflict of interest to help update articles without directly editing them: basically the idea is to make suggestions for changes on the article's talk page and allow other non-conflicted editors to put them into effect. In any case, your turnaround from editing the article (beginning in 2006, and as recently as 2011), to your current stance that it is an embarrassment to you because it is "hilariously out of date" is interesting, and I assume is in some way related to this and this. BMK (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk  15:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete: per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, Wikipedia generally removes articles about living people who are not public figures when those people request the deletion. OtterAM (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The subject of this article is an assistant professor at an R1 university who appears to have a good publication record and to be known within his field. However, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, articles about assistant professors are usually deleted, which I have recommend in this case. OtterAM (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, he's an associate professor, and being the chair of his department (is that unusual for an associate prof?) might count for something. Nevertheless, he does not seem to fulfill any of the requirements of WP:Academic. BMK (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this would ordinarily be a borderline case given that he's not publicly known, but a well respected academic in the field. But, his own request for the article to be deleted makes this a much easier decision. OtterAM (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. At best a borderline case for WP:PROF, so we should go with the subject's wishes. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per David Eppstein. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete: per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, as OtterAM suggested. Apart from that, it would be a recommendation to delete as inadequately notable.  Scr ★ pIron IV 12:28, 13 May 2016 (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.