Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olaf Teschke

: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. MBisanz ^talk 03:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

=[[Olaf Teschke]]=

:{{la|Olaf Teschke}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Olaf_Teschke Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Olaf Teschke}})

The only sources available are routine newsletters or faculty listings.The positions held are not of particular note. Fails WP:ACADEMIC Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I included him due to the involvement in the Global Digital Mathematics Library, like I did the entry of Patrick Ion a while ago (who seems to have had similar academic positions). I'd like to complete it with Pitman and Bouche (for whom probably more content is to be added; certainly, Pitman should fulfil WP:ACADEMIC, what about Bouche? If GDML and FIZ/zbMATH positions are not sufficient, please delete. (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek has two books for Teschke: http://d-nb.info/gnd/1056007435) User:Sunny98you 20:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

:The difference between Teschke and Patrick Ion seems to be largely a matter of their relative citation records: looking at Google Scholar, Teschke seems to have an h-index of 1 or 2 while Ion has an h-index of 13, which as a mathematician probably leaves Ion meeting WP:PROF#1. Teschke may have a claim to notability, through his editorial positions on Zentralblatt MATH, under WP:PROF#8 or (along with Ion) more generally under WP:PROF#4 - but both of these claims depend very much on how people read the relevant guidelines, and for the moment I would prefer to leave that to other. PWilkinson (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete as still questionable and simply not convincing of the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete. I think that for the sort of editorial/digital library things he appears to be primarily engaged in, WP:GNG is a better notability criterion than WP:PROF. Regardless, he does not appear to pass either criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2016 (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.