Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elmar Winkelnkemper

: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. Agricola has a valid point, but 168...141 gives a credible argument against a keep rationale. Considering other comments of voters, the consensus is perceived to be of delete. There is no prejudice against the article getting recreated soon after this delete, provided WP:PROF or WP:N is met. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

=[[Elmar Winkelnkemper]]=

:{{la|Elmar Winkelnkemper}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elmar Winkelnkemper}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Elmar Winkelnkemper}})

Completing nomination on behalf of 168.7.214.218, reason (see talk page) is "I don't think that Winkelnkemper meets the criterion for notability. He's not even a full professor!" --Pgallert (talk) 08:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment I think "not a full professor" isn't relevant. The other comment on the talk page may be relevant. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Talk page referred to above observes that this person is no longer active as a researcher, which appears to be more-or-less true. However, that's not really relevant for our purposes because notability is not a function of status. Several of his older papers have citation counts that are fairly respectable for pure maths, in particular there are 2 papers in AMS journals having citations of 52 and 32. Maths is generally one of the lower citation fields, and his total collective cites are >100, according to WoS. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC).
Delete: Whatever the original rational for the AfD, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that the subject meets the criteria set out in WP:PROF.--RDBury (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete: According to mathscinet, he's written a total of 15 papers starting in 1968. None of them appear in top journals (eg the Annals, JAMS, Inventiones, IHES, Duke, etc.). He does have two papers with good (though not astonishing) citation counts, though one of them ("On the existence of contact forms") was coauthored with Fields medalist William Thurston, so Winkelnkemper probably shouldn't get too much credit for it. If this thin record was enough to make a professor notable, then any full professor of mathematics at an AMS Group I university (see http://www.ams.org/profession/data/annual-survey/group_i ) would qualify, which is nonsense. In fact, these days you would even have trouble getting tenure with this kind of record at many places. 168.7.218.141 (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Weak delete. Our article on open book decomposition name-drops him but does not cite him or say anything of significance about him. His publication record is short and, although it includes a couple of papers with good citation records, he's had plenty of time to do better than that. There doesn't seem to be anything other than the publication and citation record to go on. The only non-primary source is a dissertation database. I don't think we'd lose anything of importance by not having this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2010 (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.