Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Z. Lehrer


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy Z. Lehrer

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Self-promotional article fails WP:PROF, academic work is largely self-published. Kosmos Kagool (talk) 04:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as a previous AfD nominator, I will merely note that there are too many such non-notable parataxonomists who are at war with others, claiming that they are under attack and only publish books and private brochures in an apparent effort to fulfil certain ICZN requirements. In the past the main claim for notability has been the fact that the subject published a book. This has to be weighed carefully - particularly in the light of the vanity of the author and repeated personal attacks across Wikipedia. Shyamal (talk) 04:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete only one reliable source found on him, which scarcely establishes his notability and says his work matters, but should be treated with caution. Also written by the subject, who has been trolling around here. &mdash;innotata 14:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —&mdash;innotata 14:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I've read the Romanian version which is a lot more expanded and I did not think this person is notable. Essentially that article is so full of "Genus discovered by him: xyz Lehrer...., New species discovered" $%$#^# Lehrer" that I sincerely doubt that his claims are actually widely recognized. The article was also started by a user who only edited on this article... Nergaal (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Given that the only third-party source that we have on his works (the Rognes review) is quite negative, WP:BLP seems to apply. The source is reliably published, so it's ok to use it (and maybe necessary to use it if the article is kept, per WP:NPOV). But in a borderline case such as this, when a properly sourced article on the subject is likely to be negative, I think we should err on the side of not having an article at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Someone else wrote an article about him. A reliable published source. But delete until a proper article is written with this information included. --JaRoad (talk) 07:57, 28 September 2010 (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.