Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathias Fuchs
- 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. Spartaz Humbug! 09:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Mathias Fuchs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable academic, does not meet WP:Academic. Article was prodded in August 2013 for that reason, now recreated by yet another WP:COI editor. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Provisional delete and salt. Very few GS cites found in a highly cited area. I can't find much else. The BLP is over-promotional. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC).
- Delete. Google scholar citation counts are 12, 4, ..., well below the standard of WP:PROF#C1 for a high-citation field. And I see no evidence of passing any of the other criteria, either. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2014 (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.