Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hartmut winkler


 * 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   no consensus. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hartmut winkler

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

fails WP:PROF. All references are either to other wikipedia articles (which are irrelevant to the subject) or to abstracts of subject's writings. No third party coverage. Drdisque (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, fails WP:PROF. References to Wikipedia don't help. Aiken &#9835; 16:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note Article is Hartmut Winkler (uppercase 'W'). Hartmut winkler (lowercase) is a redirect. Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The article speaks of "one of the notable influences...", "famous works...", and more. However, I cannot locate any secondary sources that verify these claims. After viewing the refs/links in the article, I believe the subject does not satisfy WP:BIO (certainly fails WP:PROF). It appears that several users have recently arisen to insert information about the subject into various articles. For example, these edits over two days introduced some novel ideas into Black box which I removed. Also, see the material added in the last few days to Web search engine. I do not see any notable work in any of the material added regarding Winkler. Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Article has been produced by 4 editors, all of them making their first edits within a period of 10 days, and with fairly similar editing history. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a CV repository. Haakon (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 08:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- the article isn't in very good shape, but the subject appears to pass PROF, with an h-index of (roughly) 10 (and possibly higher if google scholar fails to capture German citations at an even greater rate than it fails to capture English citations). Book search produces >500 hits.  News coverage is rather more than negligible as well.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that there is another Hartmut Winkler, "a physics professor at Vista University's Soweto campus", see, confounding the results. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw that there was a different one, but the extent of confounding didn't seem very great. I'll be happy to change my view if I'm wrong on that.  But I could add that a German full professor is likely to be presumptively notable as the standards for getting to that level are more stringent than in most other countries.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * However, WP:PROF demands a lot more than what you mentioned. For example, I see no indication that "the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Full professors at major universities should be considered notable. paderborn is the place that makes the determination, and we just need to record it. There is no way of using G Scholar or any other citation index accurately to determine the importance of work in the humanities--it is too erratic, and the others don;t cover books.  Looking at his web page, there are 5 published books as an author & one as an editor, each of them reviewed multiple times--and several dozen articles That's enough for notability under either WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. The reviews show the importance of the work. We could go through them and find various phrases saying how important they are, but it's meaningless--the existence of these many reviews is evidence enough.   DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reviews are indeed secondary sources. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep according to GS cites and arguments of DGG. Article was prodded by Drdisque 13 minutes after it was created. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2009 (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.