Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 128.250.0.219 (talk) at 04:31, 4 October 2017 (→‎Günter Bechly). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[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]
  • 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,Blechly'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 Blechly, 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"? 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Günter_Bechly&oldid=803715210"