Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detleff Neumann-Neurode

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. David Eppstein 02:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Detleff Neumann-Neurode

Detleff Neumann-Neurode (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Subject may seem notable, but contrary to to the POV "work of Detleff Neumann-Neurode is known the world over," he has few Google hits. Only one contributer, and the article is wildly unwikified. Sources are two small things he wrote, and are not in-line. It is possibly a copyvio. Also has no links to it. Reywas92TalkReview me 20:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Ghits again, for an early 20th century academic. Fortunately, Google also produces Google Books, which gives 21 references, being highly favorable reviews of his books in the major relevant German journals of the time--and Google Scholar which gives 4. The article itself talks about the views of medical leaders of the period about the subject, and recognition of the method as a sub-speciality and in the name of an institution.
    Examples of irrelevant criterion: "only one contributor" -- "wildly unwikified" -- sources "not in-line" -- all of them factors having nothing whatever to do with notability. This is not GA review. The effort for the AfD would have been better spent in wikifying. I've added the reviews, and better citations for his works. I apologize for any exasperation in my tone, but some attention should be paid to improving articles that look inadequate--or at least to finding some reason why the subject may not be notable. DGG 02:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve further as required. There is no compelling reason to delete this. Adrian M. H. 17:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Books satisfy notability. [1] ~ Infrangible 01:32, 10 June 2007 (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.