Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mijntje Lückerath-Rovers


 * 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. SoWhy 10:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Mijntje Lückerath-Rovers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Economist and academic that falls a little short of our general notability criteria or the notability requirements for academics. The three references provided are her personal web page at TIAS School for Business and Society where she works (useful but not independent of the subject), her LinkedIn page (not as useful and still not independent of the subject) and her PhD thesis (pretty much useless). Pichpich (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Believe she more than meets the requirements under Academics if not the General Notability guidelines as shown here at Google News  and in addition Google Scholar  . ShoesssS Talk
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR, a single article with 280 cites over more than a decade, with the next highest citation count in the teens, does not appear to meet notability criteria, and nothing else in the article signifies any of the other qualities of NSCHOLAR have been met. And other than mere mentions, not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they meet WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – I’m sorry but an article as recently as of November 2017 in the New York Times as shown here . With additional news coverage from other Third party – Reliable sources as recently as of April 2018, as shown here,  makes me ask, “What is necessary, from your standards, to meet the threshold?  Thanks for listening. ShoesssS Talk 13:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That NY TImes article does not constitute significant coverage. Lückerath-Rovers is quoted in the last two paragraphs, that's it. Pichpich (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – Again, and I know I am been thick headed here, but what constitutes “Significant” coverage? For me personally, if I am covered by the New York Times – BNR Newsradio and Het Financieele Dagblad I want a page here too .  ShoesssS Talk 17:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To quote from WP:GNG, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. Clearly that's not the case. In that NYT article, the main topic is clearly Beatrix Ruf and you could us it as a source in the article on Ruf. Pichpich (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete No pass of WP:Prof or WP:GNG. WP:Too soon as yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2018 (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.