Cordula Kropp : As always, academics are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show sourcing that properly verifies that they meet certain specific criteria for inclusion -- but this has no footnotes at all, and just contextlessly lists a couple of primary sources (i.e. her own faculty profiles on the self-published websites of her own employers and a directory entry) that aren't support for notability.  This was, further, created in draftspace by a brand new user and then immediately moved into mainspace by the same user without WP:AFC review practically the moment they had accumulated 10 edits for the purposes of gaining autoconfirmed privileges -- which is not the proper process for article creation either.  Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have any third-party sourcing besides her own staff profiles from directly affiliated entities.  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Germany .  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This seems to be a translation of the corresponding article in German at de:Cordula Kropp .  A Google Scholar search shows various publications with each publication's number of references.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 16:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS , a page being a translation of a page in another language Wikipedia is not in and of itself grounds for keeping it — in order to be kept, the page has to be properly referenced , not just "existing in the German Wikipedia".  Bearcat ( talk ) 16:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please see her citation count and h-index at https://scholar.google.com/citations? hl=en&user=r-iCYUkAAAAJ Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 17:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The citation counts linked above are not high enough to convince me of WP:PROF#C1 , so I think something else is needed.  The article lists several books, but most of those appear to be edited volumes.  If we can find multiple published reviews each of more than one authored book, that could be enough to make the case for WP:AUTHOR notability instead.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 14:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to draft .  I think this is a classic example of where the editor should be asked to improve the article so it meets notability requirements, which as mentioned by David Eppstein it might, and also they also need to ensure it is properly formatted and sourced.  I think deletion is too harsh, I would have started first with tagging and marking a few places for improvement with a NPP message to the originators.  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 00:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Moving to draft will do nothing at all to change whether the subject is notable.  And " so it meets notability requirements " exhibits a misunderstanding of what notability means.  It is not articles that meet notability requirements, it is their subjects.  If the subject is notable, she is notable regardless of the state of the article.  If she is not, she is not.  Since we're at AfD, we should decide the issue.  Draftifying, after reaching AfD, has the appearance of being a cowardly way of saying "let's hope the author goes away so we can delete it in another 6 months without discussion".  Draftifying can sometimes be useful in the situation where we have a clearly-notable subject and a clearly-unready article about them, but that's not the case here.  It is not article improvement that we need – the article is in ok shape for what its sources provide – but a determination of whether the subject actually is notable or not.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 01:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I strongly disagree, we have very different views on this.  As you stated, "If we can find multiple published reviews each of more than one authored book, that could be enough to make the case for WP:AUTHOR notability instead."  I agree with you that the case is not made for notability as yet .  To me WP:BURDEN matters, and I consider "notability" to be on a par with "verifiability".  The wording for the originator after Draftification is exactly relevant here -- "please improve" I view deleting as very harsh, it is unlikely that the page will ever be revised. I consider it a last resort; as I said above, I think that an AfD nomination should not have been done. Just because this is an AfD discusion does not mean that is all we can vote for, WP:Ignore all rules is relevant IHMO. Ldm1954 ( talk ) 02:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep -- one of the few Professorial doctors in a large department at one of the major German research universities.   Her position is really akin to a named chair at a major US institution, which is a clear WP:PROF pass.  -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as "Chair of Sociology" (actually of Sociology V) at the University of Stuttgart. (See more detailed description here ). For me, this satisfies academic notability.-- Ipigott ( talk ) 08:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As the subject holds a major designation of a major university.  Apparent WP:PROF pass.  X ( talk ) 19:15, 19 April 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep