Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulrich Mohrhoff


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Ulrich Mohrhoff

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Bio of a German physicist working in India. Sounds a bit fringy. Was editor-in-chief of a short-lived non-notable journal and has published one book, which does not seem to have made much impact yet. According to the EL to his GS citations, his works have been cited 436 time (h-index of 14). In the more conservative (and precise) Web of Science, these figures are 116 and 7, respectively. Does not meet WP:PROF. Randykitty (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. On data above-too early. May pass WP:Prof later. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC).
 * Weak delete too, per nom and Xxanthippe. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not appear to pass WP:PROF; the journal editorship is a more likely avenue for notability but it would need stronger evidence of the significance of the journal. Working as an independent scholar is not a barrier to notability, but it is a bit of a red flag signalling that his views may not be mainstream and that we should look for stronger evidence of notability than usual. But even by the usual standards, I think he is not there. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2013 (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.