Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly

Günter Bechly

(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 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
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
Keep I see absolutely no reason to delete. I'm really surprised that deletion is even being considered. - EA
’’’Keep’’’ no valid acceptable reason to delete