Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruediger John

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. So Why 20:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ruediger John[edit]

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

Page was flagged for notability 4 years ago, and no substantive improvement since. Additionally the history shows repeated IP edits, that were reverted or significantly pruned by experienced editors (with some colorful edit summaries). ~~failed projects~~ 02:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, on the basis the article is simply a CV of his jobs at academic institutions, with no explanation of what makes him notable. Meets neither WP:GNG not WP:ARTIST. Sionk (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see his work mentioned and referenced in a significant number of articles and expecially in the still emerging field of artistic research. To me it makes sense to keep this record as a centralised source about this person. In the current artistic discourse WP:ARTIST would definitely apply for his work. I agree that this article needs improvement and updates - but a deletion would be counterproductive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.231.217.87 (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough to show he passes WP:GNG (virtually nothing except on books, but they don't appear to be about this particular fellow). He has an incredibly anemic cite count, and nothing in the article suggests that he passes WP:NSCHOLAR. And again, there's nothing in the article to indicate he passes WP:NARTIST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't come up to the standards of notability we expect. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:36, 8 July 2017 (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.