Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Bruch

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Bruch

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not demonstrate how this lawyer and adjunct professor satisfies WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Edison (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as WP:PROF is in fact satisfied in both being a leader in the university's program and also being in over thousands of libraries; WP:GNG is not applicable but WP:PROF is, and that's all that matters; nomination cite no challenges to this when WP:PROF is explicit (holds major position or is largely cited, and this is it). SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: SwisterTwister, "being a leader" is not one of the criteria in PROF, and given that the references are all primary there's no indication that PROF 4 or 7 are met. H indices and "how many articles" have been long determined to not be hard indicators of notability. Thus, I think the nomination is valid - there is no indication/demonstration of the notability criteria at this time. Primefac (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established, does not meet WP:BIO nor WP:PROF. The article creator made many promotional stubs like this one lately, they should be checked as well. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 13:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing anything that comes close to WP:PROF here. He's only an adjunct prof, has low GS cites and a h-index of 4, and contrary to SwisterTwister's assertion only one of his books is widely held in libraries, and it's just a multi-author volume he is a co-editor of. Joe Roe (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Roe Look at the other WorldCat link so listed, he was the co-authored of the book first listed there and it was a major publisher, and that book is held in 415 libraries. SwisterTwister talk 18:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: That's the book I was talking about [1]. It's a collection of papers by multiple authors. Editing volumes like that isn't usually considered on a par with authoring or coauthoring a monograph, . Joe Roe (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Borderline notability at best. He is indeed editor , not author of his books, and this does not show clear notability as either AUTHOR or PROF. DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This AFD seems to show that the article creator doesn't understand WP:PROF. Folks interested in the integrity of Wikipedia should be reviewing the MANY similar promotional stubs created by this user (see their latest new article creation contributions for the growing list) and cleanup were possible, otherwise CSD/PROD/AFD where appropriate. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not start ringing the alarm bells unnecessarily. We all make mistakes, and given how much experience SwisterTwister has at AfD, AfC and NPP I'd bet that they do understand WP:PROF. I've taken a look over his recent creations and with the exception of this one they all look like useful stubs on notable academics to me. Joe Roe (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough to pass WP:Prof. Creator's wholesale BLP creations need to be looked at carefully. He seems to think that being a published author is important enough to be noted in a BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

As noted above, the others are in fact notable; I started this one specifically because the authored works seem significant at the time, but I also suggest deletion in this case. SwisterTwister talk 22:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to meet either WP:PROF or WP:GNG, although the personal aspersions in some of the above comments are disturbing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.