Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melanie Arndt


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Melanie Arndt

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

Non-notable academic, fails WP:NBASIC and WP:NACADEMIC SailingInABathTub 🛁 14:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Germany.  Delta  space 42  (talk • contribs) 14:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Delta  space 42  (talk • contribs) 14:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete unless confusion with the biochemist can be resolved. Reference 3 seems false. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC).
 * Keep. I added six reviews of two books, enough I think for a pass of WP:AUTHOR. The fact that she shares a name with someone else or that soon after article creation some drive-by editor added a bad reference (which I removed) should be irrelevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Do we know what her GS profile is? She ought to have got some cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC).
 * This is a book field, not a journal field. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Even authors of books get citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC).


 * Keep Looks like a WP:AUTHOR pass. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep — Six reviews of two books seem significant enough for me to meet. WP:AUTHOR. Shoerack (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment This article seems to be identical with one in the German WP, which has higher standards than the English WP (or used to). Peterkingiron (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think their notability standards are strong. Their sourcing sometimes can be inadequate (for instance I was unable to confirm the birthplace listed in their article), but then so can ours. Anyway, this article was initially created as a translation of theirs, but has undergone significant edits subsequently to that. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2023 (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.