- 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. There's a bit of a split over which exact PROF criteria is preferred, but there's clear consensus that the subject is notable. Nosebagbear ( talk) 14:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Otfried Deubner ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual, fails WP:GNG Mztourist ( talk) 06:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mztourist ( talk) 06:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Professor of classical archaeology at a noted university.
scope_creep
Talk
09:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Professor of which "noted university" and for how long? Mztourist ( talk) 08:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Article has a concomitant de Wikipedia article with many additional sources. It is worth noting the subject worked as a diplomat after the war, specifically to the Vatican. There is many Google sources, detailing him as a diplomat in a secondary career attached to various embassies.
- What do you mean by "concomitant de Wikipedia"? His diplomatic rank and career don't meet WP:GNG. Mztourist ( talk) 09:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Fails WP:NACADEMIC because he never had a named chair or met any of the other criteria. He seems to have a brief entry in the two catalogues mentioned in the dewiki article, but significant coverage is not determined. Briefly mentioned in this 2016 book but I'm not seeing much else. Lean towards deleting. b uidh e 10:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- That is an English book, try searching in German sources and more will turn up. scope_creep Talk 12:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment His most famous work is Das Asklepieion von Pergamon 1938, which describes the excavations of a Asclepeion in Pergamon and is a seminal work completed just before the war. That work is used in a whole number of sources, in the dozens up dozen, indicating its significance. There is more. scope_creep Talk 12:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Unsure Was he a professor (in US usage, i.e. non-notable) or the professor. Seems the former. Also, appears to have worked in the diplomatic service, but not in any notable role, such as ambassador. Which leaves the book - is that sufficient? Emeraude ( talk) 14:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete because of the low-level academic positions. Professorship is claimed, but is also says that a few years later he commenced a job as a school teacher. Low-level positions in diplomacy also. Geschichte ( talk) 18:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Rejecting an offer of an endowed chair is an interesting career move. If he had accepted it, he would likely be notable under WP:PROF#C5. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment, back to Deubner's book Das Asklepieion von Pergamon, its
held by around 99 libraries, pretty good for a 1938 book on such a
n esotericsubject, that may reflect its influence ... and the standing of its author? Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC) - Keep. A reasonable presumption is that any article on an individual in the German WP is certainly sufficiently notable for the enWP--biographies, including academic biographies, is a field where they are much more knowledgable and consistent than we are here. (this does not apply to every field, but the only field I gave encountered is companies where they seem to have some article based only on primary sources that they would accept but we would not) As for WP:PROF, Being notable enough for aqn endowed chair is as notable as holding one. DGG ( talk ) 10:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment @
Coolabahapple: Not esoteric. It is a book about a German archaeologist, digging up a Roman health temple in Greece and writing about it in German in the 1930's and it then becoming a standard work on that subject. His three other books are similar standard works.
scope_creep
Talk
11:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Provide WP:RS that supports these assertions. Mztourist ( talk) 11:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- hi scope_creep, have struck out word from my "comment", apologies if seen as inappropriate/incorrect. Coolabahapple ( talk) 21:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Per DGG. For what it's worth, WP:ACADEMIC criteria are a fickle matter when it comes to the first half of the 20th century and earlier. A quick Scholar search of his works will show you that he has been cited numerous times, and one can safely assume that those numbers Google's AI reached would be significantly increased by actual citations from undigitized articles back in the day. That is one of the criteria, and I'll pass DGG's Chair argument as he explained it satisfactorily. Now continuing with his influence in the field, the fact that he's mentioned in several books, such as https://books.google.com/books?id=7C1WDwAAQBAJ, or https://books.google.com/books?id=49wdCgAAQBAJ&, or the fact that his books themselves are discussed in other books, should again be positive indications, and therefore support his notability claim. Finally, as people have established previously, if one searches German sources (stop being so Anglocentric!), even more results appear (like https://books.google.com/books?id=7C1WDwAAQBAJ this, as late as 2005). So don't be hasty and judge 1930s academics with 2020s eyes. I therefore think he is notable per WP:ACADEMIC. Best, PK650 ( talk) 23:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Per good arguments by DGG (de-WP and NPROF#5 angle), and also WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER. I can't see a real reason to delete this. Britishfinance ( talk) 11:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Per PK650 and DDG.— eric 18:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: the subject has a de.wiki article which seems convincing for notability: Deubner; there's also a plausible pass under WP:NAUTHOR. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. It's easy to get hung up on the institutional criteria of NPROF, but the fact that Deubner's work is still cited and discussed half a century on (see e.g. PK650's references) is a clear sign that he was a notable scholar per WP:PROF#C1. – Joe ( talk) 13:49, 21 January 2020 (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.
- 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. There's a bit of a split over which exact PROF criteria is preferred, but there's clear consensus that the subject is notable. Nosebagbear ( talk) 14:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Otfried Deubner ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual, fails WP:GNG Mztourist ( talk) 06:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mztourist ( talk) 06:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Professor of classical archaeology at a noted university.
scope_creep
Talk
09:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Professor of which "noted university" and for how long? Mztourist ( talk) 08:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Article has a concomitant de Wikipedia article with many additional sources. It is worth noting the subject worked as a diplomat after the war, specifically to the Vatican. There is many Google sources, detailing him as a diplomat in a secondary career attached to various embassies.
- What do you mean by "concomitant de Wikipedia"? His diplomatic rank and career don't meet WP:GNG. Mztourist ( talk) 09:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Fails WP:NACADEMIC because he never had a named chair or met any of the other criteria. He seems to have a brief entry in the two catalogues mentioned in the dewiki article, but significant coverage is not determined. Briefly mentioned in this 2016 book but I'm not seeing much else. Lean towards deleting. b uidh e 10:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- That is an English book, try searching in German sources and more will turn up. scope_creep Talk 12:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment His most famous work is Das Asklepieion von Pergamon 1938, which describes the excavations of a Asclepeion in Pergamon and is a seminal work completed just before the war. That work is used in a whole number of sources, in the dozens up dozen, indicating its significance. There is more. scope_creep Talk 12:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Unsure Was he a professor (in US usage, i.e. non-notable) or the professor. Seems the former. Also, appears to have worked in the diplomatic service, but not in any notable role, such as ambassador. Which leaves the book - is that sufficient? Emeraude ( talk) 14:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete because of the low-level academic positions. Professorship is claimed, but is also says that a few years later he commenced a job as a school teacher. Low-level positions in diplomacy also. Geschichte ( talk) 18:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Rejecting an offer of an endowed chair is an interesting career move. If he had accepted it, he would likely be notable under WP:PROF#C5. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment, back to Deubner's book Das Asklepieion von Pergamon, its
held by around 99 libraries, pretty good for a 1938 book on such a
n esotericsubject, that may reflect its influence ... and the standing of its author? Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC) - Keep. A reasonable presumption is that any article on an individual in the German WP is certainly sufficiently notable for the enWP--biographies, including academic biographies, is a field where they are much more knowledgable and consistent than we are here. (this does not apply to every field, but the only field I gave encountered is companies where they seem to have some article based only on primary sources that they would accept but we would not) As for WP:PROF, Being notable enough for aqn endowed chair is as notable as holding one. DGG ( talk ) 10:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment @
Coolabahapple: Not esoteric. It is a book about a German archaeologist, digging up a Roman health temple in Greece and writing about it in German in the 1930's and it then becoming a standard work on that subject. His three other books are similar standard works.
scope_creep
Talk
11:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Provide WP:RS that supports these assertions. Mztourist ( talk) 11:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- hi scope_creep, have struck out word from my "comment", apologies if seen as inappropriate/incorrect. Coolabahapple ( talk) 21:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Per DGG. For what it's worth, WP:ACADEMIC criteria are a fickle matter when it comes to the first half of the 20th century and earlier. A quick Scholar search of his works will show you that he has been cited numerous times, and one can safely assume that those numbers Google's AI reached would be significantly increased by actual citations from undigitized articles back in the day. That is one of the criteria, and I'll pass DGG's Chair argument as he explained it satisfactorily. Now continuing with his influence in the field, the fact that he's mentioned in several books, such as https://books.google.com/books?id=7C1WDwAAQBAJ, or https://books.google.com/books?id=49wdCgAAQBAJ&, or the fact that his books themselves are discussed in other books, should again be positive indications, and therefore support his notability claim. Finally, as people have established previously, if one searches German sources (stop being so Anglocentric!), even more results appear (like https://books.google.com/books?id=7C1WDwAAQBAJ this, as late as 2005). So don't be hasty and judge 1930s academics with 2020s eyes. I therefore think he is notable per WP:ACADEMIC. Best, PK650 ( talk) 23:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Per good arguments by DGG (de-WP and NPROF#5 angle), and also WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER. I can't see a real reason to delete this. Britishfinance ( talk) 11:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Per PK650 and DDG.— eric 18:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: the subject has a de.wiki article which seems convincing for notability: Deubner; there's also a plausible pass under WP:NAUTHOR. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. It's easy to get hung up on the institutional criteria of NPROF, but the fact that Deubner's work is still cited and discussed half a century on (see e.g. PK650's references) is a clear sign that he was a notable scholar per WP:PROF#C1. – Joe ( talk) 13:49, 21 January 2020 (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.