Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Bernhart


 * 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 per consensus.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Alfred Bernhart

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable professor with limited academic impact. Article is entirely sourced to self-published articles about his various theories. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:ACADEMIC appears to have made a significant contribution to the field of environmental engineering, please don't assume someone's not notable just because their specialist area is only small. Seasider91 (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I find it difficult to distinguish this sort of soft science ("his theory of seven dimensions") from crankery, but that may just be my unfamiliarity with the area. Nonetheless, I don't see a lot of evidence of notability here. Google scholar gives top citation counts around 33 or so, not enough to make a case for WP:PROF. The supposed "Heinemann Prize" given is not the notable one (one of the two Dannie Heineman Prizes in mathematical physics or astrophysics) nor the Gustav-Heinemann-Bürgerpreis (founded 1977), Edgar-Heinemann-Preis (from Chemnitz), Gustav-Heinemann-Friedenspreis (for children's books), or Otto Heinemann Preis (for businesses). In fact the only evidence I can find of Bernhart having such a prize is a handful of web pages such as this one. So it probably doesn't pass WP:PROF. The claim of a Nobel nomination is laughable (winning is notable but anyone can be nominated and trumpeting nominations is something cranks do). So what else is there? And where is the reliably-published in-depth sourcing by people independent of the subject that we need to support an article? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability not established. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete. The text about work that includes Bernhart's theories is basically just a list of 4 citations. Agricola44 (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete as the article is still currently questionable overall. SwisterTwister   talk  04:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.