Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Gronenborn
Yes,  is met, but that's not what  asks. It asks whether the person is a {{tq|"relatively unknown, non-public figure"}}. In clicking around to figure out exactly what that meant, I wound up at  and the section on Eminence caught my attention. I'm no expert on the world of academia, but from what I understand it's ''expected'' that a person who's been around this long has racked up triple-digit publications and a strong handful of chairs and other titles. The subject here may be an expert in her field, but how well-known is she outside of her field? From what I can tell she's gone out of the way to be as private a person as she can ''given the field she's chosen to work in'', and my reading of the OTRS ticket does nothing to dissuade me from that. This isn't a situation where notability needs to overcome the deletion policy. The deletion policy has simply thrown the tiebreaker in the article subject's favor, where "no consensus" here means "delete", rather than "status quo", and the community can make its decision, as it always has. &#8209;&#8209
— [[User talk:ElHef|ElHef]]'''&nbsp;([[Special:Contributions/ElHef|Meep?]]), 21:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NPROF||WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE||WP:LPI (Wikipedia:Notability)