Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clara Löh


 * 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. ✗ plicit  00:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Clara Löh

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Does not meet any notability criterion D.Lazard (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women,  and Mathematics. D.Lazard (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)


 * But there is a German article: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clara_Löh
 * So if she is notable enough for a German article why not an English article? DoesWhateverASpiderCant (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * German and English notability criteria need not to be the same. For the criteria of English Wikipedia, see WP:NACADEMIC. This answers your question. D.Lazard (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF. Google scholar citation counts are low, as they often are in mathematics, but that means that the most frequent criterion for academic notability, #C1, cannot be justified, and I think the local teaching award does not pass #C2. I did find two zbMATH reviews, one each of her two books, but as such reviews are WP:ROUTINE (zbMATH covers essentially all research-level mathematics publications) I don't think they count much towards WP:AUTHOR notability. The books are not even reviewed in MathSciNet, where coverage would again be considered routine for the same reason. Article creator appears to have been indiscriminately creating articles from WikiProject Women in Red/Mathematics; the creation of more biographies on women mathematicians is commendable but that redlist has many names of non-notable mathematicians in it (as the more notable ones have already been picked through) and must be used with great caution and attention towards our notability criteria. For a better selection of missing articles to create I would suggest instead WikiProject Women in Red/Fellowships, because the fellowships would mean that most or all of those redlinks would pass #C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Citation counts don't look that low for pure mathematics. I'm surprised that two books with the major publisher Springer have not gained multiple reviews. In particular Geometric Group Theory: An Introduction has 81 citations in GS, which usually translates into multiple reviews. Is it possible there are reviews for a German-language edition? ETA PhD dated 2007, so probably just a case of too early in the subject's career. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Having searched around in German, I have not been able to ascertain any more evidence for notability than what has been mentioned before. She does not seem to hold a W3 professorship, which might be considered the German equivalent of a named chair, and there have been no German edition of her books or German language reviews of the same. The zbMATH reviews are at least beyond the sort of routine abstracting they often do, but even if we would consider them adequate they are short of multiple reviews. Therefore it is probably just WP:TOOSOON for an article. Felix QW (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete as others have said, seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON, for WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Past consensus in recent similar cases has been that notability fails even in pure mathematics short of about 3 papers with 100 citations each.  (I'm probably a little more inclusive for articles on mathematicians than others here, but this looks well short.)  I'm very surprised not to see more reviews for WP:NAUTHOR, but did not succeed in doing better than others here.  I would expect the Geometric Group Theory textbook to be notable, as a mid-level textbook in a significant area by a major publisher (and then we could at least redirect to an article on the book), but for Wikipedia this would require reviews or similar. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:47, 17 May 2022 (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.