Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Koch


 * 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. The discussion here indicates that the person is either not notable enough or at best barely notable enough for inclusion. From the discussion, it seems that consensus leans more to the former, and so I shall delete the article. NW ( Talk ) 03:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Stefan Koch

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

A brief profile of an assiatant professor. No notability proved via independent sources. Twri (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — J04n(talk page) 03:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as original prodder. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unless there's something that could be added to this stub, this person badly fails WP:PROF: assistant professor, and no books published. However, he might pass if someone can find something here. I can't find anything specific that raises him to notability. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, he does seem to have one book, Open Source Software-Entwicklung: Analyse und Aufwandsschätzung an einem Beispiel, Peter Lang Verlag, 2002, ISBN 9783631385128, as well as one edited volume. But the book is "Volume 2831 of Europäische Hochschulschriften" so I imagine this is just his thesis, from a system that requires that theses be published as books. In any case I don't think this is a subject that measures productivity in books. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, weak keep, per WP:BARE, but we need a bit more convincing. Bearian (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The citation numbers I'm seeing in Google scholar are 133, 84, 72, 59, 38, ... Not at all bad for someone at his level of seniority, but not enough to convince me of a clear pass of WP:PROF #1. And there seems to be nothing else to go on. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Marginal. GS cites give h index = 10. Still a bit marginal for WP:Prof #1 so WP:BARE. Notability may improve in a few years. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Weak delete - passing WP:PROF seems suspect at best. I am unconvinced that the burden has been met by the creator. Cocytus   [»talk«]  17:54, 20 December 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.