Revision as of 19:30, 1 October 2017 editApproaching (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,328 edits →Günter BechlyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:44, 1 October 2017 edit undoStarTrekker (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers174,936 edits rNext edit → | ||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
*'''Keep''' I don't know much about Misplaced Pages 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.] (]) 19:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' I don't know much about Misplaced Pages 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.] (]) 19:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC) | ||
**This is not a legitimate defence of the article, the fact that you like it is not relevant. A deletion discussion is also not a voting thread, like so many people here are clearly treating it as. Will the people who do not understand what an AFD is or works please stop spamming this discussion.] (]) 19:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
*'''Keep''' This page of Dr. Bechly is not to be deleted! It must stay here! Tis is my opinion! | *'''Keep''' This page of Dr. Bechly is not to be deleted! It must stay here! Tis is my opinion! | ||
Revision as of 19:44, 1 October 2017
Günter Bechly
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)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- 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)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- Weak either way. GS h-index of 17 marginal for WP:Prof#C1 Nothing else. . Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC).
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)- I have struck your "keep", because you are only allowed one keep or delete opinion per AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep I don't know much about Misplaced Pages 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)
- This is not a legitimate defence of the article, the fact that you like it is not relevant. A deletion discussion is also not a voting thread, like so many people here are clearly treating it as. Will the people who do not understand what an AFD is or works please stop spamming this discussion.★Trekker (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep This page of Dr. Bechly is not to be deleted! It must stay here! Tis is my opinion!
- 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? — (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)