Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian E. Elger


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Christian E. Elger

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article doesn't pass WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. No in-depth coverage on reliable or independent sources. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 05:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  SirEdimon  Dimmi!!! 05:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. With six publications up into four-digit citations on His Google Scholar profile, he easily passes WP:PROF. And copying and pasting the identical nomination statement on seven rapid-fire AfDs       doesn't make a strong case that the nominator has considered these cases individually or done the searching requested by WP:BEFORE. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , These all articles created by the same editor linked to, what I believe to be a paid accounts scheme. I opened a SPI on them. They are all linked to the Federal University of Sergipe. As I'm, also, an editor at the pt.WP their editing pattern caught my attention. I didn't mean to abuse the AfD. I just checked all their contributions and tried to assess the ones that, in my view, doesn't seem to pass the notability criteria. As you seem to have much more expertise then me, would you be willing to check their contributions and see if there are any other articles that doesn't meet the notability criteria? Regards. SirEdimon  Dimmi!!! 06:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. With only 84,452 citations, and an h-index of 144, he hasn't reached 100,000 citations yet though it is easy to project that he will eventually. Easily passes PROF-1.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 07:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. The guy has over 1000 articles indexed by Scopus and an h-index of 114... JoelleJay (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep easily passes WP:PROF. –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 18:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Many of the highly cited articles are also highly coauthored, but even removing these there appears to be plenty for WP:NPROF C1.  I hope the nominator did a careful WP:BEFORE on each article before batching them for AfD; this article leaves me a bit concerned about that. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. and please stop wasting peoples time. --hroest 14:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As some of the AfD's in this batch have been trending to "delete" (currently this, this, this, and this) or at least equivocal (like here), it looks like the effort has quite possibly found articles that the encyclopedia shouldn't be hosting. So, I wouldn't say that our time is being wasted. Though a more thorough WP:BEFORE might have sifted out some obvious keeps, I do have to admit that WP:PROF is one guideline that takes a bit of getting used to. It asks for articles to be evaluated using kinds of evidence with which even experienced editors are often unfamiliar. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * and As I stated here on this AfD and here. These are all articles created by the same account which I believe is linked to a sock/meat/undisclosed paid scheme. They are all linked to the Federal University of Sergipe, a university in Brazil. As I'm an editor at the Pt.WP and here on en.WP I've tried to track them down and see which articles created by them are non-notable or even spam. Of course, my knowledge on WP:PROF proved a little fault (despite the article that really don't pass WP:PROF), but I'm acting in good faith.  SirEd  Dimmi!!! 04:56, 28 July 2021 (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.