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. Arguments revolved around PROF C1 j⚛e decker^talk 17:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ulf-Daniel Ehlers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Does not appear notable per WP:ACADEMIC. All of the cited sources are simply links to the mentioned institutions or web material published by the subject of the article, none of which establish notability. Appears to be an autobiography. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. GS h-index of 17 [1] may just pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Nothing to suggest notability apart from instution. All passing mentions. Tezero (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this is to be kept, somebody should re-write this article. At this point, it is way too promotional. --Randykitty (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete despite the h-index of 17, influence doesn't seem to be there and there seems to be no real coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 08:53, 17 June 2014 (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.