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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrud Schiller (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)

I have read this article over, but am not able to determine what, if anything, makes this individual notable by Wikipedia's terms. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG nor WP:NBIO. A loose necktie (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I simply looked at her being cited in important articles, such as iconography. Why not tell interested readers who she is, a writer of reliable sources? - I will look deeper later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my English isn't the best. In the Iconography Article stood Schiller, Gunter in the bibliography and that's wrong. Probably someone read Schiller,G and imagined the Gunter. So I thought it would be a good idea to translate the German article into English so that the English-speaking world would know who Schiller,G is. OnnoS (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep A really stupid nomination! As the lead says, she is the author of what remains (after almost 50 years) the standard work on an important branch of art history, published in Germany, London and New York. I can't imagine how high her citation index is, but look how many WP articles cite her as a ref! She was also on two "missing articles" lists, and is listed in the very selective Dictionary of Art Historians, virtually a guarantee of notability for an art historian (most of them with WP articles aren't in there). The article is the poor translation of her one on German WP, but it will be improved. Looking at the contributions of A loose necktie he seems to do many unjustified speedies/Afd noms. User:CAPTAIN RAJU, this should be added to the visual arts list, please - I never know how to do this. The article needs proper refs of course; there are plenty of reviews and obituaries, even just in English. Johnbod (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's refrain from judgmental remarks, please. XOR'easter (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:PROF in the typical way that a scholar of the humanities does. In addition to the above points, her Ikonographie der christlichen Kunst has been reviewed in profusion: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7], after which I stopped counting. This more than clears the bar for notability per WP:AUTHOR. It's also been cited in excess of a thousand times, once you add up the different editions, printings, translations, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Easily passes WP:PROF. --Tataral (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The page needs to be developed, yes, but there is no question about the fact that the subject of the article is notable. Passes WP:PROF. There are many books, essays as well as Wikipedia articles that cite her work. Netherzone (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. https://books.google.de/books?id=76u8CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA120&dq=Schiller,+Gertrud.+Iconography+of+Christian+Art+standard+work&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpvdSMz_jhAhVRiqQKHVSICQwQ6AEISDAE#v=onepage&q=Schiller%2C%20Gertrud.%20Iconography%20of%20Christian%20Art%20standard%20work&f=false

https://books.google.de/books?id=1v5o2uw0GJAC&pg=PA92&dq=Schiller,+Gertrud.+Iconography+of+Christian+Art+standard+work&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpvdSMz_jhAhVRiqQKHVSICQwQ6AEIZTAI#v=onepage&q=Schiller%2C%20Gertrud.%20Iconography%20of%20Christian%20Art%20standard%20work&f=false

... and more

https://www.google.com/search?hl=de&tbm=bks&ei=qKrIXJ7lI4_ewALurrnYAg&q=Schiller%2C+Gertrud.+Iconography+of+Christian+Art+standard+work&oq=Schiller%2C+Gertrud.+Iconography+of+Christian+Art+standard+work&gs_l=psy-ab.3...4126.4925.0.5251.5.5.0.0.0.0.80.361.5.5.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.deOWVVAxY2w

cited as standard work OnnoS (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per evidence cited by others. I am convinced that she meets WP:PROF. In my experience translating from de to enwiki, just looking at de content for notability is really not enough. Though one of the larger wikipedias, de is a much smaller community with far fewer articles. There is a real chance that an article subject (including this one) is actually 'more' notable than de would make it seem. Prometheus720 (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all those above. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 21:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- if she really did produce a "standard work", she is certainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Schiller's work has been described as a "standard reference work" in "The practice of the Bible in the Middle Ages : production, reception & performance in Western Christianity" (New York: Columbia University Press 2011) by Susan Boynton, Diane J Reilly. And as a "standard work" in other books and journals easily found online. Netherzone (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and hope for improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep noted historian, pages take awhile to improve sometimes, and that is okay. It doesn't need to be perfect.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:55, 2 May 2019 (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.