Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. With a bunch of considerations:

  • I've opted to disregard a bunch of single-purpose IPs and accounts because of the canvassing concerns and because most of them are merely making assertions without offering evidence that WP:PROF or WP:GNG are met. I did factor in the opinion of the account that shares its name with the article topic, though. A neutral post on the fringe noticeboard does not per se constitute improper WP:CANVASSING.
  • It does not seem like "having a number of species named after one self" is considered a reason to keep, probably because while it does indicate "notability" it does not necessarily indicate "notability".
  • That the nominator of an AfD did not start a discussion first on the talk page or add maintenance tags does not demerit the AfD nomination; for one thing, there is a difference between the present state of the article and the amount of information available on a topic (which is what AfD ultimately adjudicates)
  • Accusations of anti-creationism bias are not germane to the purpose of AfD, and we don't consider the stances of an article subject on a contentious topic in judging notability.
  • All that said, it seems like the sources provided in the discussion are considered to be too tangential - they mention the article topic in passing rather than being specifically about the topic. Other sources have issues like being primary or unreliable or not independent.

On balance, it seems like the case that the sources do not establish GNG notability is more thoroughly argued than the case that they do (which is mostly assertions) and there is no indication that any other PROF notability criterium is met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Günter Bechly

edit
AfDs for this article:
Günter Bechly (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)

This individual does not appear to pass GNG based on the source I can find. Notability concerns have been raised previously on the talk page so I felt it should be dealt with. ★Trekker (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete either way. GS h-index of 17 marginal for WP:Prof#C1 Nothing else. . Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete lacks a strong enough citation level to pass academic notability guideline , nothing else to suggest notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a little surprised that this has been flagged. Bechly seems to be a well-credentialled paleontologist with what was a fairly public career in Germany. He is also of wider interest, however, due to the events surrounding his conversion to ID, as discussed in the article. - Sam Tanner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.50.63 (talk • contribs) — 139.216.50.63 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep Seems to me that someone who has new taxa and species named after him is by definition "notable"; for people who are working with such specimen should surely be able to find after whom they are named, with the bibliography attached! There are no sane reasons to delete this page. - AE Tanner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainstreamegypt (talk • contribs) Note: "Tanner" was added to the signature by a different single-purpose editor, 194.96.90.219 (talk · contribs)
  • Keep I see absolutely no reason to delete. I'm really surprised that deletion is even being considered. - EA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsabe13 (talk • contribs) — Elsabe13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep no valid acceptable reason to delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.183.87 (talk • contribs) — 82.29.183.87 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Based on what, just your mind I guess, my concerns about lack of sources are very legitimate. Why is there a bunch of keep votes with no real signature and such poor motivations?★Trekker (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Little to no secondary sources discussing Bechly, and the article itself has been written mostly by the subject, a Conflict of interest.--Kevmin § 18:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He has one well-cited paper ("Fossil odonates in Tertiary amber"), one reasonably well-cited co-edited volume ("The Crato fossil beds of Brazil: Window into an ancient world"), and lower citations for his other works, not enough to convince me of a pass of our standards for academic notability. His turn to fringe creationist views does not seem to be notable at all, and cannot be covered without mainstream sources giving it an adequately neutral point of view. So the only possible source of notability would be as an exhibit curator, but that would require in-depth coverage of his role in the exhibits or as a museum leader (not just inherited notability from special exhibits he organized) and I don't see that in the article. On top of all that, the autobiography issues are a big problem. And none of the sources we have are reliable; the only one with any plausible appearance of reliability and independence from the subject, the interview by Probst, is essentially self-published. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deletion's not justified. Dr. Bechly's considerations on biological evolution are relevant, User: Daniel O. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:1205:34f6:a640:c58:b384:f97e:cf26 (talk • contribs) — 2a02:1205:34f6:a640:c58:b384:f97e:cf26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - This whole process of trying to delete Dr. Bechly prove the small-mindedness that prevails these days and the threat deep thinkers like him pose to certain members of society. His interpretation of Origins issues are his personal business. He is an outstanding academic and scientist in his own right, if he hadn't changed his stance this wouldn't even be an issue. The ones shouting "delete" are just out to censor anyone who thinks differently. That's not acceptable practice. EA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsabe13 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep I don't know much about Wikipedia notability guidelines or what's acceptable, but I've been visiting this page off and on for several years now, including before Dr. Bechley's acceptance of ID. I've enjoyed reading about his work and how his views have changed. So I hope it stays.JoeCoder (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page of Dr. Bechly is not to be deleted! It must stay here! Tis is my opinion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.167.141.206 (talk • contribs) — 84.167.141.206 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep. The h-index argument for deletion is weak if it doesn't look at subfield, and argument from academic impact alone is insufficient, since there are also non-academic notability factors at play. On the other hand he has a range of species named in his honor. It would also be odd to have the species but delete the honored person they are named after. He's also a relatively noteworthy if controversial figure in the whole ID controversy. And finally, article improvement is an option, so why delete? —[Approaching] (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not inherited, it should not matter if he has a number of species named after him. Only coverage in multiple reliable sources grants proof of notability. If you can find sources and are intending to improve the article you are free to do so.★Trekker (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't get your reasoning in the first sentence. What is the relevance of inheritance? And species named in honor of him is only specified not to fall under the first criteria of academic notability. You can't jump from this to "it doesn't matter". Multiple minor things might be enough to cumulatively put one over the edge, even if it's a mix of academic and general notability. Add to that a little more work on the article, and maybe there's no need to purge useful information from Wikipedia. Maybe it's also worth noting, for the evolution warriors, that you need such bios to note the scandals. Otherwise there will be no record of it. —[Approaching] (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • The reasoning is WP:NOTINHERITED: being related to something notable is insufficient for notability. It's also important to understand that significance and notability are two different things. And most deletion-discussion participants (myself included) do not adhere to the theory that lots of things that are individually too small can add up to notability. Re "evolution warriors": see WP:BATTLEGROUND. We are not here to fight that battle, but to describe things in neutral terms (which means, according to the mainstream scientific consensus) according to the balance of reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for clarifying. I got a bit of spare time so let me clear a few things up: First, I'm not making an inheritance-based argument. That is, I'm not arguing that the subject of the BLP gains notability by virtue of the subject's link to something notable. Rather, I'm saying one contributor of notability is your notability among colleagues in a field, and one such indicator is when they choose to honor you by naming species after you. Second, WP:IMPATIENT and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP: You can't delete an article simply because nobody has worked on it quickly enough. Especially so because the subject appears to be German-based, it's not abnormal to struggle to find English-language sources. A reasonable response to this cross-cultural difficulty is a bit of patience, and some requests for assistance. Notably, in this regard, user requesting AfD has not even added a Refimprove tag on the article before seeking to delete it. Third, user initiating the AfD has failed to comment on the talk page, let alone start a discussion on improving sources. Nor has user made an improvement to the article other than to nominate it for deletion. None of this demonstrates enough effort on the article. You can't call an article's problem insurmountable if, so far as we can tell, you haven't tried to surmount it. Fourth, it's worth noting that this AfD request relies on a call for deletion on the talk page. Has anyone looked at how abysmal its reasoning is? I quote: "By way of comparison, Volker Mosbrugger, the head of the Senckenberg museum, and also a paleontologist, doesn't have his own page.". Somehow this half-baked argument has been deemed so persuasive as to snowball into an AfD. Critically-thinking Wikipedians, say it ain't so. Fifth, note that the user requesting AfD has tried to establish GNG, but not academic notability. Seems like not enough work has been done all-round to establish a good basis for AfD. Such efforts ought to be undertaken before seeking AfD. I want to know if the user requesting AfD is willing to work with others on this problem, or if user is dead-set on deletion. —[Approaching] (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • What the hell is an "evolution warrior"? You and many others here clearly lack understanding of what wikipedia considers to be notability.★Trekker (talk) 04:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.140.70.65 (talk • contribs) — 70.140.70.65 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment I was initially a little confused as to why this article had been flagged for deletion, given Bechly's academic standing in Germany and his prominence - or notoriety - as a convert to ID. However, it seems from the above thread that it is exactly Bechly's conversion to ID that might be the issue here, which is unfortunate. One or two users apparently have an axe to grind on that point, with a rather combative tone, and comments like "[Bechly's] turn to fringe creationist views". This is related to the whole issue of WP: NPOV - a perennial challenge for Wikipedia, given that those with the strongest feelings on either side of a debate tend to invest the most effort in pushing their view. I understand the concerns of these users regarding ID, but deleting a prominent paleontologist's biographical entry isn't an appropriate way to resolve them. Not sure if there's an admin who can have a look and close this thread off? - Sam Tanner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.50.63 (talk • contribs)
    • I don't care at all about any of that, what I see is a lack of sources, which I doubt you will be able to fix. The point of the other editor is that his views are not notable.★Trekker (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. It's perfectly possible for someone to be notable as a creationist, but the sign that they have reached that point is that their creationist views have been noted as such by mainstream sources. But from what I've seen so far the creationist side is by far the weakest point of the article, after his work as a scholar and curator, to the point where even if we keep the article on other grounds we can't keep that material in it. Again, not because I or other editors here have any particular bias against people who hold this sort of belief; rather, it's because we don't have the reliable mainstream sources for that material that our policies on coverage of living people require. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, a little note, Wikipedia doesn't care about personal views, it will always reflect evolution as factual because that is what overwhelming scientific consensus says. So any attempt to try to turn this into a debate about how Wikipedia is biased will be null and void, don't even attempt it. This is an encyclopedia that reflects sources and consensus not about how stuff should be fair for both sides or some nonsense like that. You have made several keep "votes" already Mr Tanner which isn't even allowed do I'd say you have no clue about how Wikipedia works so lay off it.
Now, it maybe also appropriate to point out that I was not even aware that this person was some kind of creationist or whatever when I put this article up for deletion. I simply saw it a while ago by looking at someone elses edit it and decided to check the sources, which I do regularly, and saw that they were very lacking. I then checked the talkpage which had already brought up the issue of notability. I felt a AFD was a good idea. That's that.
Now find reliable sources to support your belief that this person is notable or go away. If you are feel I'm being combative and condescending towards you that's because I am. I have no patience for attempts at vote manipulation and people who don't respect or know a thing about wikipedia standards. I will not be adding anything to this discussion anymore. As far as I see this is a case of canvassing and incompetent attempts att saving this non-notable persons article.★Trekker (talk) 06:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trekker, let's keep it civil. I appreciate your concerns about the article, and respect your position. However, the tone is unhelpful, and does suggest that this is more than routine housekeeping. So, too, your suggestion that I've been voting multiple times to keep the article, which isn't true - I've voted once, as anyone can confirm above. I have no axe to grind here. If you're concerned about the quality of the article I'd encourage you to go ahead and edit it. Given Bechly's standing, however, I'm yet to see a compelling reason to delete it. Peace, Sam Tanner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.50.63 (talk) 07:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that WP:CIVIL is probably an issue here, given that you openly admit to being "combative and condescending". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.50.63 (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can confirm that this discussion has been overrun by editors who have a similar lack of experience with Wikipedia, its policies, and its deletion discussions, write in much the same way as each other, use the same arguments and similar wording to each other, repeatedly fail to provide proper signatures for their signatures, sign things with some combination of the same initials "A", "E", and the name "Tanner", and in some cases even complete each others' signatures. I think we can be forgiven if we consider the possibility that you might not all be different people arriving at this discussion without any connection to each other. And now suddenly despite your complete naivety with respect to other Wikipedia matters (and without even a welcome message on your talk page through which you might have been linked to it) you have discovered WP:CIVIL. How very interesting. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
David, this is getting silly. I suspect the "AE Tanner" entry was an edit error, where someone accidentally copied part of my own signature, though of course it's possible that we have another Tanner on this page. Either way, it wasn't me, and I'm sure you can geolocate the IPs to confirm this. I've voted once, and made one other comment. I'm not sure what your last point is, but in any case I've done quite a bit of Wikipedia stuff in the past, and I'm generally familiar with the rules, including WP:NPOV and the problems with WP:CIVIL above. You've both made some valid points, but I think the view here generally is that it's time to move on. Best, Sam Tanner (laptop instead of phone). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.50.63 (talk) 07:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note:"Tanner" had nothing to do with that entry. Why some third party added his name is beyond me. AE [=User:Mainstreamegypt]
Ah, I just had a closer look, and you're right, AE. A third, anonymous IP has, indeed, added my surname to your vote. A bit curious, given the suggestion now that I've voted more than once. - Sam Tanner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.50.63 (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. —PaleoNeonate – 08:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent is relevant to AfDs. See WP:SSEFAR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.0.201 (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bechly is a well-known paleontologist in Germany after whom several species have been named. I see no reason wikipedia should not make a page for a person like this, as it seems standard for anyone else with similar credentials. I'm not sure why it was even brought up for deletion. jfraatz(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been listed at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you did there, David. - Sam Tanner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.0.222 (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why I left this notice here. How people get informed of deletion discussions is supposed to be public information; see WP:CANVASS. So how did you get informed of this one? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/gharial-snouted-archegosauroids-and-kin/. Plenty more if necessary, e.g. on BBC and Fox News and in German newspapers and TV. - Sam Tanner

The credit from Scientific American is a little weaker, but I included it as a sample of the dozens of such references in scientific and media publications, which as a whole do reflect on Bechly's standing. The others are pretty strong. - Sam— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.50.63 (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2017‎
  • Keep, because his rethinking has by no means changed his scientific expertise. Nelkenwurz (talk) 08:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)— Nelkenwurz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - While some of his work is impressive to me, does not appear to meet WP:NPROF or WP:NBIO. The current article also has apparent WP:COI issues. If kept, it should be pruned (as WP:NOTCV). I tried to find some mentions in large English papers and found one mention in The Washington Post as the author of an image used in a paleontology related news article (which was not about him and is not significant coverage). The current sources used in the article are far from ideal (fail to demonstrate significant coverage in sources independent of the subject and notability). It is possible that the person is better known locally/nationally than internationally. —PaleoNeonate – 08:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is more a referencing issue with the article as it stands, not with Bechly's notability - see the citations provided above (e.g. Bechly's discoveries reported in New Scientist and The Independent). - Sam Tanner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.50.63 (talk) 09:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As noted before,Bechly's taxon descriptions do not in and of themselves impart notability to him. There is little to no secondary coverage of him, and the suggested sources that have been provided are not about HIM, but only mentions of him in passing while talking of other things. The references that are in the article now are not acceptable, due to them being published by Bechly, and thus considered primary sources, which articles on living people are to avoid.--Kevmin § 01:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you search for "Bechly" or "Blechly"? [Edit for clarity: previous post initially had "Blechly" throughout, and stated that it was difficult to find secondary sources.] Try the former on Google News and you should find dozens of references to Bechly's work in the media (I.e. specifically about discoveries by Bechly, sometimes in conjunction with a colleague). For instance, Bechly's co-discovery of a prehistoric cockroach seems to have gained coverage in most major news outlets around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.0.219 (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is coverage about Manipulator, NOT about Bechly, so for the 3rd time, it does not confer notability to Bechly, simply because he is mentioned in passing....--Kevmin § 05:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for notability don't require that coverage be biographical in nature, just that the subject is frequently mentioned in "conventional media" as "an academic expert in a particular area". Coverage of Bechly as discoverer of Manipulator - in articles about the discovery of Manipulator - counts for more than a "passing reference". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.0.202 (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KevMin, I saw that one of the Wikipedians who advocate the deletion of my page is himself an academic with a Wikipedia page (David Epstein). Could you please provide secondary sources that justify his entry with the same rigorous criteria discussed here, because otherwise I will request its deletion, which will almost certainly never happen because we all know that this complete farce is not about notability.Dr. Günter Bechly (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True, Eppstein seems to have virtually no media coverage at all, local or international. One might counter with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but precedent does carry weight as far as AfDs are concerned - see WP:SSEFAR. I've never seen another case where questions were raised as to whether the level of coverage Dr Bechly has received in world press fulfills criteron #7 for academic notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.0.201 (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What, in your view DO you feel this is about, if not about not meeting the notability criteria that Wikipedia has crafted over years of exisitance? I am not going to tit-for-tat about asserted crusading--Kevmin § 20:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is nothing but crusading, and you perfectly know that it is NOT just a „lucky coincidence“ that deletion was requested relatively shortly after I am officially involved with an Intelligent Design organization and more publicly active in endorsing my critique of Neodarwinism, while no such deletion attempts happened in the years before (my page exists since 2012).Dr. Günter Bechly (talk) 05:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely possible that your badly-sourced autobiographical additions to the article documenting your changed beliefs caused the problematic nature of the article to become more readily apparent to other editors. But you are still missing the point about the nature of the problem. It is not about your religious beliefs or their incompatibility with science. It is about whether it is possible to have an article that presents you as others see you (as published in reliable sources) rather than as you see yourself. If the sources that would make that possible do not exist, or if you cannot be made to stop editing the article about yourself, then the better option is to have no article at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
David is correct that Bechly's views on evolution are irrelevant per se to whether he is notable. Notability is an objective measure of the amount of secondary coverage a subject has received. This is why David's attempt to frame the discussion, above, in terms of WP:FRINGE over at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard is obviously an attempt at WP:CANVASSING, prejudicing users over there as to what this AfD is about and inviting them here to vote. What I want to see is a policy-based argument that the scores of references to Bechly in international press as "an academic expert in a particular area" do not fulfill criterion #7 for academic notability. In the absence of such an argument, this AfD should be closed off and work should focus on enhancing the citations, as several users have discussed above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.0.201 (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this request of yours is that there aren't "scores of references". The references that the subject provided were uniformly deficient in some way: they weren't in independent sources, they weren't significant coverage of the subject, they weren't in reliable sources, or they weren't even verifiable. None of this demonstrates "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." At the very most generous reading, they demonstrate fleeting interest in some of the insects he has studied. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 12:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "scores of references" have been provided in this thread. See above. -Sam Tanner— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.50.63 (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2017‎
And have been evaluated, assessed, and deemed not acceptable. See immediately above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is unacceptable about, for instance, the interviews on German TV? - Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.50.63 (talk) 09:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you'll note, most of the delete !votes do cite policy, while most of the keep !votes don't. Also, I think you meant to say that secondary coverage is an objective measure of notability, not the other way around. Regardless, determining notability, especially in borderline cases, can definitely be subjective. If it weren't, discussions like this wouldn't be necessary. But in this case, it just doesn't seem to be there. And as for your suggestion of focusing on improving sourcing – nothing is stopping you from improving the article's sourcing while the AfD discussion is open. In fact, I've seen articles kept at least in part because people did just that. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bechly's notability should be assessed not just on the basis of the entry's existing references, but from those provided above as well (e.g. from BBC, ABC, Fox News, Livescience, The Independent, and so on). I've now added some of these to the article itself. - Sam Tanner— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.50.63 (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2017‎
And as pointed out by multiple people, multiple times, those do not establish notability (continuing to assert that isn't helping). He's barely mentioned in any of them, and they certainly don't satisfy WP:NPROF.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deacon Vorbis (talk • contribs) 14:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discussed above. - Sam Tanner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.50.63 (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these "long-term Wikipedians" appear to have been canvassed by David Eppstein at the Fringe Theories noticeboard. - Sam Tanner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.50.63 (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Public notifications at large on-Wikipedia noticeboards or projects (or sorting lists) is not canvassing (especially when a notice is made here about it using {{delsort}} or {{deletion mention}}). Please see the small messages starting with Note:. —PaleoNeonate – 04:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given where the notice was placed (when WP:FRINGE seems to be irrelevant here), this falls under "campaigning", a specific case of canvassing (see WP:CANVASSING ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.198.149 (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC) — 49.199.198.149 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Fringe is not irrelevant here. Bechly is a person with a fringe belief. WP:FRINGEN is the correct place to notify editors interested in editing articles related to fringe subjects that one of those articles might be deleted, just as we also have boards for notifying editors interested in academic biography (the one I found this from), Germany, etc. Having a fringe belief, by itself, is not a valid reason for deletion, any more than is being an academic or being German, but that's different from being irrelevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am a fringe noticeboard regular, but that does not make me more or less likely to support deleting this page. For example, if somebody nominated the Ken Ham page I would strongly advocate keeping it. I decide whether to !vote keep or delete according to Wikipedia policies such as WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Ham meets the requirements. Bechly does not. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A wave of delete votes followed David's post on WP:FRINGEN, so I think other users can decide what his motives were. Almost everyone else is supporting "keep". - Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.50.63 (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "I think other users can decide what his motives were" doesn't change the fact that you are falsely implying that a perfectly normal part of Wikipedia decision making (notifying relevant noticeboards) is some sort of conspiracy. And your response contains a basic, logical flaw. If then, as you claim, fringe theory noticeboard regulars are more likely to !vote to delete a page because it is about a creationist, how then do you explain the multiple pages about creationists which fringe theory noticeboard regulars not only supported keeping, but expanding? Free clue:those creationist have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Günter Bechly has not. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting farcical, and it's time for a friendly reminder about WP:CIVIL. What we need is an explanation of *why* Bechly's media coverage - in both German TV interviews and world press - don't confer notability, not merely repeated assertions that they don't. On your other point, the purpose of WP:FRINGEN is to "ensure that neutrality is maintained" in articles about "fringe" theories - clearly irrelevant to this AfD about notability, and so David's actions are not a "normal part of the Wikipedia decision-making process". WP:FRINGEN regulars will of course be less sympathetic to Bechly being presented as a "notable" paleontologist, as we've seen. Closing admin needs to keep this in mind. - Sam Tanner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.50.63 (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's getting farcical, @Sam Tanner:, but probably not in the way you mean. You are one of seven anonymous editors who have !voted "Keep". There are a further two registered editors who have also !voted "keep" immediately after registering. In fact, all but four "Keep" !votes are from such new users (and those four editors had been long-absent from their editing prior to posting here). This is surprising, since AfD discussions are not generally exposed to new users; there is no link from the main page and this is a bureaucratic "behind the scenes" area that usually takes time for new users to find. Both in my personal experience and in the general experience of regular editors on AfD, new editors do not stumble across AfD discussions. They are nearly always lead there. You have accused David Eppstein of canvassing, so the question can fairly be asked of you, as well. Are you prepared to disclose how you and these other editors were lead to this discussion? Please also note, before you toss WP:AGF in here, that that behavioral guideline generally stops applying to those who have themselves breached that assumption. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the canvassing issue (which hasn't conferred any unfair advantage in terms of actual arguments), the real issue is whether deletion is warranted, and I don't reckon the case for this has been adequately made (see my argument above). The central question--of whether the case for notability is truly irredeemable--has not been adequately addressed, but instead the complaints have been that the current set of sources don't establish notability. This is in violation of WP:IMPATIENCE. In addition, during the course of this discussion, a range of sources have been offered that I think change the landscape significantly. At minimum, I think, this calls for a serious reassessment. —Approaching (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Günter_Bechly&oldid=1089822949"