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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martina Pippal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable, fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG, tagged for sources since 2011. Cupper52 (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete perhaps someone will find coverage, but I cannot find any. Possibly (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No substantial coverage. Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:CREATIVE, the GNG, and any other standard I can imagine. The fact that it's a BLP makes it even worse. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cuñado, The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments. Vexations (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Looking at Google Scholar,[1] I think the subject does not yet meet WP:PROF. However, as she has multiple books, the most relevant guideline seems to be WP:AUTHOR, which requires "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." There's one in German on Schatzkunst. Die Goldschmiede und Elfenbeinarbeiten aus österreichischen Schatzkammern des Hochmittelalters [2] but others would be useful. I will have a more careful look. I'd suggest that this AfD is held open as it has not been indexed in the most relevant deletion sorting fora, which might bring more reviewers. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Her WorldCat page[3] shows that her books are held in multiple libraries (1,200 library holdings in total), with four books held by >100 libraries: Wien und die Entwicklung der kunsthistorischen Methode (143 libraries), A short history of art in Vienna (129 libraries), Kunst des Mittelalters : eine Einführung von den Anfängen der christlichen Kunst bis zum Ende des Hochmittelalters (129 libraries) and Schatzkunst : die Goldschmiede- und Elfenbeinarbeiten aus österreichischen Schatzkammern des Hochmittelalters (101 libraries), and there are three more held by >50 libraries. Perhaps DGG could give an expert opinion here? Espresso Addict (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Espresso Addict and WP:NAUTHOR. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Library holdings, though not a formal criterion, can be a useful proxy in fields where citation analysis does not apply--and it dos not apply in these fields, because the density of publication is much lower in any areas relying on books. Given the extent to which Worldcat over-represents US library holdings, and relatively few US academic libraries collect to any substantial extent works other than in the English language, these figures are very substantial for works in German dealign with European topics. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I found and added to the article a second book review for Schatzkunst. There appears to exist a review of Die Pfarrkirche von Schöngrabern by Patrik Reuterswärd in a Norwegian journal in 1993, but I am having difficulty even finding the name of the journal — anyone else have better luck? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found it!. So now we have three reviews of two books. Still pretty borderline by that measure of WP:AUTHOR, but getting closer. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per discussion and the continuing improvement of the page during the duration. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. After much searching I found another review, bringing it up to four reviews for three books. That's enough to convince me of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Improvements since the AfD nom have convinced me that WP:AUTHOR is met. XOR'easter (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY and WP:AUTHOR. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2021 (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.