Deletion of Charles Fritz Juengling

Comment: I came to basically the same conclusion as the nom a few days ago when I put a PROD on the article, which was subsequently taken down. The extensive list of sources just doesn't add up to 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: The "In Literature" section refers to several publications that make use of or reference to Juengling's work. I think we have to be careful not to introduce systematic bias against people who are notable within what might be considered a "niche" field of study. My recommendation is that this article be kept but cleaned up in the following ways: 1) put more specific emphasis on places in the phonological literature where Juengling and his work has been discussed and drawn upon by others in the field, 2) put more emphasis on positions, especially elected positions such as society chairs, that Juengling has held, and 3) clean up the language a little so that it is more neutral. As an example of this last point: "Juengling's language proficiency has enabled him to hold posts at...." sounds a little like it's selling the point, and could be simplified to "Juengling has held posts at...."  If these changes are made, I believe this passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: WIth or without "Charles", the citation record is way too meager to meet rof#C1
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: References consist of primary sources about a person with no credible claim of independent notability.  Fails .  A search on Google Books turns up only a few primary sources (10) and no secondary ones discussing him
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: for lack of evidence of passing . Simply publishing is not enough: the publications have to make an impact, and Google scholar says they have not (no citations
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)