Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waldemar Heckel

{{AFD help}}

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

:({{Find sources AFD|Waldemar Heckel}})

Fails WP:PROF and cannot find any notable secondary source IW. (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. Two of his books are highly cited, which is probably enough for WP:NPROF C1. And there are several reviews of his books now in the article, which looks like a pass of WP:NAUTHOR. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR by way of having multiple books with multiple reviews apiece, well over the minimum we look for with humanities scholars. And I think there's a good WP:PROF#C1 argument to be made, as {{u|Russ Woodroofe}} suggests. XOR'easter (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. Many published reviews of many books make for a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The simplest Google Scholar check shows strong evidence of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep -- Though his works are not all that numerous, it is clear that he must be an expert on Alexander the Great. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.