Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hans Volkmer


 * 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. Tone 18:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hans Volkmer

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Appears to fail WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR. Not an endowed chair or, as far as I can see, a member of any learned societies. Low citations on Scholar:. (Unless, contrary to my layman's expectation, math is in fact a low-citation field.) Two reviews of his book Multiparameter eigenvalue problems and expansion theorems, but without more it doesn't look like a WP:NAUTHOR pass either. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: I think this is a pass of WP:Prof based on the number and quality of publications and their being widely cited. (Msrasnw (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC))
 * hope you don't mind, I "fixed" the formatting of your vote as it was being lumped together with the wikiproject deletion sorting messages. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 22:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Math can be a low-citation area, depending on the subfield. If the research area is sufficiently towards the pure side of the spectrum, citation counts will often be low, and looking at other criteria is more illuminating. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. It's a low citation field but we still need evidence of academic or other notability. The only other thing we have is a book with three reviews, two of which (the MathSciNet and zbMATH ones) are more or less automatic, and the notes for WP:PROF explicitly list those as not counting towards that criterion. The book is enough to raise my opinion from delete to weak delete, but I'd like to see something else at the same level before agreeing to keep this. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Any idea how the top three items in the Google Scholar profile could be from other people? I've seen misclassifications and odd behavior on GS before, but that's an unusual level of it. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A combination of Google's autoclassifier being stupid and Volkmer himself not taking care to remove the misclassifications from his profile, I'd guess. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds plausible. Sometimes I can puzzle out what led to the misclassification, like a book and a review of it getting mixed up, but here I couldn't tell what had prompted the errors. Not a big deal, though. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 03:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Citation numbers below the bar for his field, and absence of any other fact supporting notability per WP:NPROF. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 22:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Not quite enough to push over the WP:NPROF bar... -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2020 (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.