Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly (2nd nomination)


 * 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. As accurately noted by a participant this is indeed an edge case of notability. Those who suggest that Bechly is notable advance several arguments for this position including GNG coverage and his academic achievements being enough to meet one (or more) notability of academics criteria. Particular attention and emphasis was paid to Bechly's contribution to the identification of various species in regards to his academic notability. However, the evidence and reasoning of those suggesting Bechly is notable did not resonate with editors. These editors offer their own policy and guideline supported reasons for deletion and for why the evidence of notability is not enough to satisfy our guidelines and policies. While consensus on Wikipedia is not found by counting votes, neither can the roughly 70% of editors who feel deletion is merited be ignored, especially when those participants base their reasoning in our practices, guidelines, and policies. To ignore, even for a no consensus close, such an overwhelming consensus of editors would require an extraordinary level of support from policies. One such claim was made: accusations of a failure to keep a neutral point of view by those who do not find Bechly notable. While there may, or may not, be bias towards academics who believe in Intelligent Design, such a consensus will not be reached here where the focus is on Bechly. Those who support deletion of this article offer their own evidence to refute this accusation of bias. As such there is no policy basis to weight keep participants in such a way to override those editors who favored deletion.

As an uninvolved administrator, I am aware of no policy or guideline that would support moving the statement after closing. Further, I think the clerking which moved it there was entirely appropriate. This is a discussion about whether Bechly should or should not have a Wikipedia article; that is the core discussion at hand. Discussions and meta analysis about this discussion belong appropriately on the talk page. As such, as closer, I believe that discussion should stay where it is and would ask it not be moved post closing. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Günter Bechly
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BIO1E applies. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF, as evidenced by the over-reliance of this article on the subject's website. In the media coverage about the fossils, the subject is a mere mention. Most of the independent sources discuss the deletion of the last article. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 15:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Deletion review of the prior AfD. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per the prior deletion nominations and failure to meet notability standards.-- Kev min  § 16:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment the article is significantly different from the prior version with new sources. Valoem talk contrib 18:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll grant that you cleaned up the junk that you should've addressed before moving this back into the main namespace. The issue remains that there's no claim to notability and you can't sell GNG with these sources. I'd like to know if you have a conflict of interest regarding this subject, as this effort to generate and keep the article seems very rushed for a long-term editor like you. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Notability was never in question there is no reason to delete this person. I have provided new sources. The COI accusation is simply ridiculous he passes WP:PROF.Valoem talk contrib 20:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Notability was always in question since the last AfD. Clearly, you haven't made a case that the subject is notable and with seven days for this AfD, I have doubts consensus will change here. Please don't see my question as an accusation. I've edited for pay before and I encourage everyone to do so. My last article was done with a CoI. I simply assume that scrambling to rewrite the article only after I nom'd it indicates the sort of priority not given to hobby projects that you could've kept in your userspace for another month. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per the consensus of the last go-around, which the deletion review affirmed as a good close. The "coverage" of the deletion of his Wikipedia article in reliable sources &mdash; outside the creationist bubble &mdash; was minimal. Brief blurbs about a paper he co-authored don't amount to significant coverage. In short, nothing has changed. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The last time around, we looked at his citation record to see if he passed WP:PROF, and (obviously, given the outcome) there wasn't a consensus that he did. Nothing's changed on that score, either. One well-cited paper, a co-edited volume (much less of an achievement than writing or even co-writing a book), being one of many authors on an appendix that's basically a table with footnotes, and then a steep drop-off in citation counts... there's nothing remarkable about that, and no indication that whatever professional success he's had adds up to a case for wiki-notability. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I see one source that might pass muster, and that is about him losing his Wikipedia page.Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: I just went over the sources again, and I could not find anything that meets the criteria found in Notability (academics). He appears to be most notable for having his Wikipedia page deleted and having a bunch of creationists attack Wikipedia because of this, but that just leave me with Notability (people). The previous AfD got it right, and nothing has happened since to change his lack of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing major has changed since the last AFD. I don't see any sources here that puts his coverage above the average YouTube channel/Instagram influencer that we routinely have to delete. I do feel a little bad about this, it feels a little mean to have to delete a scientists article again, but I'm sorry, he just doesn't appear to meat GNG. If he personally wants a Wikipedia article (not sure if he does or if its other people that keeps trying to force one) he needs to make more of a noice in the field.★Trekker (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Getting his Wikipedia article deleted isn't enough for notability. Shouldn't this have needed a (positive) deletion review anyway before it can become an article again? --mfb (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No. The result if the deletion review was "Endorse original close, no consensus on recreation." This left open the possibility of recreating it with sources that establish notability. Followed by the inevitable 2nd AfD to determine how successful that effort was. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep at present. Seems to be some high citations for WP:Prof but I would be more certain if there were a GS profile for this person. His alleged fringe views make him more interesting. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC).
 * At least from what I could see here, their GS citations were pretty run of the mill for this field. I'm always wary about citation counts for notability as even in academia, citation counts are difficult territory to traverse. That's even moreso when we're anonymous editors here on Wikipedia. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Editor hat off for a moment and speaking as an entomologist, there is nothing in the article to establish notability over any average entomologist (or paleontologist) in terms of the "average professor test". Editor hat focus back on, and the last AfD was clear on delete. The small addition recently on "controversy" over having his article deleted isn't really anything of significance to change notability. Even if it was more significant, it would be a case of WP:1E since he isn't particularly notable as a researcher. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So few scientists embrace creationism, the creationist community richly rewards those that do, and try to make them seem as notable as possible. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep basicly using WP:OTHERSTUFF about 50% of accademics pages should be deleted if this one is deleted. So I would like to see all those others deleted first before this one. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would you ever invoke WP:OTHERSTUFF? That does nothing but make your opinion look unfounded.★Trekker (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Before voting based on prior AfDs please look at the person in question, he passes our guidelines for inclusion based on GNG and WP:PROF, he was notable to the point the encyclopedia was criticized for his deletion. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 00:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But the problem is, as already noted in this page and the prior deletion discussion, which was upheld in two deletion review. He does NOT meet the criteria.-- Kev  min  § 01:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Valoem is correct in asking those of us the !voted in the last AfD to look at this one fresh, rechecking the new page and looking at the sources again, rather than just !voting the same way assuming without checking that nothing has changed. I was careful to give all of the evidence a fresh look and to do a new search for evidence of notability. Where Valoem is mistaken is in his claim "he passes our guidelines for inclusion". After looking closely at the available evidence, my conclusion was that he does not -- but that conclusion could have changed if there had been new evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have difficulty with the unsourced claim that he expressed doubts about Darwinism. Can a source and explanation of what he said be given? It looks only too easy to sabotage the BLP of any scientist by putting in such claims. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC).
 * Here is a direct quote from Günter Bechly's website, in the section he titled "Anti-Darwinism":
 * "My Anti-Darwinian views: Neo-Darwinian macroevolution has been decisively refuted by modern science and is demonstrably failing to be a feasible explanation. Furthermore, phenomena like the origin of life and of complex biological novelties, the origin and fine-tuning of the universe, and the origin and nature of consciousness all suggest that mechanistic and materialistic theories fail to explain the evidence, which is better explained by an intelligent cause or at least an influx of information from outside the system."
 * That seem pretty clear to me. --05:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. It should go in the article. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC).
 * Self-published so lacks context, but that source and the front page of his website is informative about his career change in December 2016 to employment by the Discovery Institute and one of its spin-off ID promoting efforts. . . dave souza, talk 08:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Is this the second 2nd nomination? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That is what it says in the title. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC).
 * Hmm, I thought it had been deleted twice already, but I may have been thinking of deletion reviews. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - After checking the sources where there are only mentions (Vrsansky is also usually mentioned and there's no article about him but from a few searches may be notable), I see only one that really is about Bechly (but even more about Wikipedia), the one relating to the previous deletion. One could argue that the event increased notability although the article's author writes a lot about Wikipedia because of the encyclopedia's own notability.  The nominator hits the spot with WP:BIO1E.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 16:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Per PaleoNeonate. But there's a few days left, perhaps some bone/insect people will turn up with some brilliant refs. For the history interested, besides the Afd, there was also Deletion review/Log/2018 February 3 and Deletion review/Log/2018 April 17. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the delete votes here, and the last time, including my own. He does not appear notable. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 21:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Meh. I was one of the delete opinions in the original AfD, but his citation counts are borderline. It would be reasonable to argue for a keep based on his citation record if the article was focused around his academic contributions, stating only that he left academia. The reason I am not making this argument is that the article is clearly not focused on that, and in fairness to his changed beliefs cannot be. I'm not convinced that creationists having an online tantrum because one of their own did not make the cut makes Bechly notable, either. If the article is kept, the part about his rejection of one of the basic tenets of modern biology needs to be rewritten to make clear that that is what he has done, per WP:FRINGE, with none of this mealy-mouthed "expressed doubts" and "his stance", but at this point that looks unlikely. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I like this comment as these ideas also crossed my mind when evaluating notability. For most apologists we have articles about (there are a number), we usually have things to write based on independent sources that cover them and their arguments, their story, positions, etc.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 08:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

<ul><li>Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.<ol> <li>Two Anthony Walsh books that contain roughly the same content about Günter Bechly but say it in different ways:<ol> <li> According to https://vernonpress.com/contact, "Vernon Press is an independent publisher of bilingual scholarly books in the humanities and social sciences."</li> <li></li> </ol> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>

<ol> <li>Two Anthony Walsh books that contain roughly the same content about Günter Bechly but say it in different ways:<ol> <li> According to https://vernonpress.com/contact, "Vernon Press is an independent publisher of bilingual scholarly books in the humanities and social sciences." The book notes: "ID's powerful arguments have attracted many former Darwinists, including Gunter Bechly, a German paleontological biologist. As the leading evolutionist in Germany, Bechly was invited in 2009 to organize a museum exhibit in Stuttgart to celebrate the bicentennial of Darwin's birth. Among the exhibits on display, Bechly featured an old-fashioned weight scale showing a number of anti-Darwinian books in one pan and Darwin's Origin of Species in the other. Naturally, Darwin's book left the combined weight of the other books dangling in the air. This powerful visual symbol was designed to show that all contrary evidence is impotent against the weight of Darwin's theory. However, Bechly decided to read those dangling books and began to have gnawing doubts about his commitment to Darwinism. The upshot was that he rejected Darwinism and became a Christian. Bechly proclaims that he is a theist who strongly rejects atheism and ontological materialism/naturalism, and that: '[quote from Bechly].' Bechly is a scientist who follows the data where they lead instead of blindly adhering to ideology. Perhaps other critics of ID should approach ID books with similar open-mindedness."</li> <li> The book notes: "ID's powerful arguments have attracted many former Darwinists, such as Gunter Bechly, an eminent German paleontological evolutionary biologist. Because of his standing as the leading evolutionist in Germany, Bechly was chosen to organize as museum exhibit to celebrate the bicentennial of Darwin's birth in 2009. Among the many exhibits, Bechly had a weight scale erected showing a dozen anti-Darwinian books in one pan, and Darwin's Origin of Species in the other. Naturally, Darwin's book left the combined weight of the other books dangling in the air. This was a powerful visual symbol; all contrary evidence is impotent against the weight of Darwin's theory. However, Bechly decided to read those dangling books and began to have gnawing doubts about his commitment to Darwinism. The upshot was that he rejected Darwinism and became a Christian. Bechly is an example of a scientist who follows the data to where they lead instead of blindly sticking with ideological orthodoxy. As he put it [quote]"</li> </ol></li> <li> The article notes: "A German paleontologist recently announced the discovery of a new species of dragonfly with ties to intelligent design, a providential discovery he highlighted by naming the insect for one of ID’s longtime champions. Gunter Bechly discovered the species in 2011 but had to delay publishing the finding until last month because of other obligations, he wrote on the Discovery Institute’s blog. Until 2009, Bechly accepted neo-Darwinism as settled science. In preparing an exhibit for the museum where he worked in Stuttgart, Germany, he gathered books on intelligent design, intending to discredit them. Instead, he realized they made some good points and adopted their worldview as his own. The story of how he discovered the new species of dragonfly is equally unlikely. While looking at a website for fossil collectors, he realized one of the specimens came from an early Jurassic dragonfly no one had previously identified among about 6,500 species of fossilized and living dragonflies and damselflies. He contacted the owner to ask if he could borrow and study the well-preserved fossil. What he saw led him to identify detailed characteristics of the insect, some of which it shared with other similar dragonflies from the same time period. Those characteristics met the definition of “homoplasy,” features shared between species but not with any identified common ancestor."</li> <li> Factum is a German-language Christian magazine from Switzerland. From Google Translate: "“Bechlya ericrobinsoni” is the scientific name of a small dragonfly species from ancient times. 'Gorgopsidis bechlyi' is the name of a jumping spider made from Baltic amber. These two and four other fossil insect species are named after Günter Bechly, a German paleontologist and specialist for amber and insects. 'Bechlyidae' is even the scientific name for a family of small dragonflies from the Upper Carboniferous. In total, Bechly has described over 160 new species. ... [Discussion about Günter Bechly and Wikipedia] Some of his scientific works, which were previously linked on the website of his former employer, the Natural History Museum in Stuttgart, have also disappeared almost without a trace. Günter Bechly worked there as a curator for amber and fossil insects for 17 years until he lost his job at the end of 2016. The reason: he had committed a kind of mortal sin in science and publicly expressed doubts about the theory of evolution. He presented his worldview on his private website and confessed himself to the biblical creator god as an intelligent designer of life. At the same time, however, he also made it clear that his professional work at the museum would be strictly separated from his conclusions and that he would continue to adhere to all scientific demands on his work. ... Of course, it is particularly interesting: How did Günter Bechly change his mind? He first studied in Stuttgart, then in Tübingen, where he finally did his doctorate on the history of the dragonflies. In 1999 he started working at the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart. In Darwin year 2009 he had a special task as curator: he was appointed project manager for the special exhibition 'Evolution - The River of Life'."</li> <li> The article notes: "Günter Bechly, a devout Catholic from Germany, had a promising academic career as a paleontologist. He had published numerous papers in prestigious, peer-review journals – including groundbreaking studies he conducted into the evolution of dragonfly wings – and was even a curator at Stuttgarts State Museum of Natural History. At least until 2016. That's when he first came out against evolution and in favor of intelligent design. He found himself embraced by the religious right in the United States, becoming a pawn in their political struggle over the world's origin story. ... Bechly's objection to what scientists call the modern evolutionary synthesis began to make waves after he joined the Discovery Institute, a conservative, self-styled think tank promoting intelligent design – the pseudoscience rehash of creationism and the idea that modern science alone cannot explain the existence or diversity of life on Earth. Bechly even participated in a movie, Revolutionary, produced by the Discovery Institute, that presented testimonies of scientists dubious of evolution."</li> <li> The article notes: "German paleontologist Günter Bechly, former curator of the Stuttgart State Museum of Natural History, is a world expert on fossilized dragonflies. He has discovered more than 170 new species, and eight species, two genera, and one family of organisms have been named after him. To prepare for an exhibit celebrating Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday, Bechly read intelligent design books—and became an ID proponent. He is now a fellow at the Discovery Institute and a senior research scientist at Biologic Institute. He now lives in Austria, but I interviewed him in Seattle, Wash. Here’s an edited Q&A."</li> </ol>

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Günter Bechly to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * From World about Günter Bechly, "He has discovered more than 170 new species, and eight species, two genera, and one family of organisms have been named after him." From Anthony Walsh, "ID's [intelligent design's] powerful arguments have attracted many former Darwinists, such as Gunter Bechly, an eminent German paleontological evolutionary biologist. Because of his standing as the leading evolutionist in Germany, Bechly was chosen to organize as museum exhibit to celebrate the bicentennial of Darwin's birth in 2009." From Haaretz, "Günter Bechly, a devout Catholic from Germany, had a promising academic career as a paleontologist. He had published numerous papers in prestigious, peer-review journals – including groundbreaking studies he conducted into the evolution of dragonfly wings – and was even a curator at Stuttgarts State Museum of Natural History. At least until 2016. That's when he first came out against evolution and in favor of intelligent design. He found himself embraced by the religious right in the United States, becoming a pawn in their political struggle over the world's origin story." Cunard (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the Vernon press books are WP:SPS: . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

<ul><ul><ul><li>I don't consider the Vernon Press books to be self-published sources. From https://vernonpress.com/faq: "Q. What role does peer-review play in the publication process? A. All our books are peer-reviewed by suitably qualified experts and until peer review concludes successfully publication cannot be guaranteed. Peer review helps us select only works of a high academic standard and ensures that your book sits alongside other high quality publications. It also helps you receive constructive feedback so that you may improve your work. ... ... Q. What happens if reviewers do not recommend publication and you decide not to publish my book, even though we've signed a contract early on? A. Offering a contract before peer review signals our confidence in your work and provides a measure of reassurance to encourage you to develop and finalize your manuscript (see more information here). Before offering a contract, we have a reasonable expectation that the manuscript will be publishable, even if it takes extensive revisions to bring it up to publishable standard. However, in the event that we have to outright reject the publication following peer review, we will cancel the contract to allow you to pursue alternative publication arrangements." Cunard (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)</li></ul></ul></ul>


 * Several of these sources are evangelical Christian publications (the two World sources and Factum). World is one of the better in that category (I'm not so familiar with Factum), but it's still hard to !vote keep about someone pushing a fringe theory that's most associated with evangelical christianity based largely on evangelical christian sources... &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 13:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. In addition, the Haaretz item is already in the article, and is basically the only decent source anybody has turned up. Moreover, I'd say that anyone saying ID's [intelligent design's] powerful arguments have attracted many former Darwinists is ipso facto not reliable.... XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ID's [intelligent design's] powerful arguments have attracted many former Darwinists is an exceptional claim that the author has not substantiated by providing examples of those former Darwinists. I don't consider that unsubstantiated exceptional claim to be sufficient to make the book unreliable for establishing notability. Even if the book source were discounted, the Haartez and World sources provide enough significant coverage to establish notability per Notability. Cunard (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

— Go Into The Light (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Was likely already notable enough for Wikipedia as a scientist before his controversial deletion, but it can only be ascertained for certain if/when a German comments on relevant matters/details which only a native German speaker (and ideally resident) would properly understand. If that doesn't happen, deletion will likely merely be a case of Wikipedia's long standing systemic bias problem in action yet again. Commenting as a usually only lurking journalist, who was nonetheless wholly offended by the suggestion below that I am probably too stupid to even have an opinion on this matter.

The fact that he has a long standing biography in German Wikipedia seems to be pretty strong evidence he is notable, and just as much for his career before he became a creationist, as after. Since it stands to reason most of the reliable independent secondary coverage of this man will be in German language sources. I that regard, it is surely significant in of itself that his man is even known to non-German scientific media such as New Scientist and ScienceDaily as an "expert" in his field (ScienceDaily) for his discoveries of multiple extinct species.


 * I think it would be an example of systemic bias to delete this biography without, for example, a German speaker having even commented on aspects like what exactly are the nature of these claimed appearances on German TV and interviews in the German press that appear in his German biography, and which certainly seem to predate the creationism controversy. Absent any other details of his life, it has to be assumed these were because either he or his work transcended the barrier from niche science to popular interest.


 * A German speaker could also probably shed more light on the probable significance of this man being interviewed by "Ernst Probst" for "GTIN Verlag", since that could definitely be indicative that they pass the test for having "had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by reliable independent sources".


 * All of this information, which only a German speaker (and ideally, a native German) can really speak to with any authority, could be highly significant to this debate. To this non-German this all certainly seems to point us in the direction of this man having done something important in his field, over and above run of the mill science, where the mere act of discovering new things, is (or should be if you're doing it right) your stock in trade. What matters, as reflected by the relevant Wikipedia guidance pages, is assessing the importance/significance of their discoveries.


 * A German speaker, for example, could also probably shed more light on how important it might be for this man to have been the project manager of an exhibition that won an award from the Volkswagen Evolution Foundation, or that he was a curator at the Stuttgart Museum of Natural History. Since these may or may not also be relevant regarding the tests for a notable scientist having significant awards or positions, reflecting their significant impact in their scholarly discipline.


 * His German Wikipedia page mentions that at least one his discoveries identified a "missing link" in the fossil record, which to the lay person is always indicative of a leap forward in scientific understanding, rather than an incremental step. That key phrase is a notable omission from this English page. Similarly, I certainly know enough about academia to know "summa cum laude" is a pretty big deal, but this is also ommitted from this page. Why? If the reason for these omissions is simply because nobody here speaks German (bar one person, "mfb", who hasn't said anything in that regard either way) and therefore isn't capable of properly conveying this man's career as it is reflected in independent reliable sources, which of course do not have to be written in English to be cited in English Wikipedia, that is an error.


 * Last but by no means least, why would the fact that this person later disavowed science to become a believer in Magic Man theories have even made it into independent sources, if he were not a significant scientist? Again, this is where it would seem to be important to know the views of German speakers, because it doesn't seem to be the case that this aspect of his life is even considered significant in Germany, judging by its ommission from his German Wikipedia entry. And if it isn't, it does rather suggest that the fate of his biography in English Wikipedia is not being decided by factors that relate to his established record as a German scientist, and therefore it might very well be true that a notable German scientist previously had, and might again have, his English Wikipedia biography deleted, simply because he later disavowed science. As a punishment for his heresy, if you will.


 * I normally wouldn't even comment on an internal Wikipedia debate, being a mere lurker in these back office areas, but as a journalist myself, I was highly offended by the suggestion below that we might be somehow missing crucial aspects of this debate, that we might just be too stupid even to understand the mystical ways of the wiki. This isn't rocket science, believe me. It probably would serve that person well to appreciate that there are lots of things that Wikipedia tries to do, but just does them very badly. Factoring out systemic biases in decisions about who and who has not done enough to merit a Wikipedia biography, being one of them.


 * You would not believe from comments like that, that it was only because of recent research into Wikipedia's language barrier problem, that we even realise just how little crossover there is between the different language editions, most notably, English and German. Barely 100,000 pages common to each "encyclopedia". Which suggests that if Wikipedia editors genuinely want to build a compendium of noteworthy human knowledge (such as a collection of biographies for scientists who have made significant discoveries) where language alone isn't a barrier to inclusion, they should pay the utmost heed to cases where they might be creating an odd disconnect between what German Wikipedia decides regarding the notability of a German scientist, and what English Wikipedia decides.


 * It certainly should not be beyond the wit of man to appreciate that there is absolutely no equivalence whatsoever between seeing a German scientist who gets mentioned in international science media for his apparently noteworthy discoveries as being worthy of an article in English Wikipedia, to making that case that it should have an article for "every garage band, everyone with a YouTube channel, and every actor in every commercial ever aired", and therefore refuse to endorse any statement or view made in their name that is predicated on such, well, unscientific nonsense.


 * Systemic bias is real (of which world view is just one such bias), a scientifically proven flaw of Wikipedia. It has already been determined on this very page that when looking at citation metrics alone, which you would hope (but also cannot rely on) are not affected by the language barrier, there is no agreement among Wikipedia editors as to whether this man's work is outstanding in his field, or just everyday worker-bee science.


 * The precautionary principle would therefore seem to apply, especially given the presence of the clear temptation of some to want to simply erase a heretic from existence insofar as recorded human history goes. Erase them, rather than let the children of our children reflect on the somewhat uncomfortable fact that in the early 21st Century, sometimes even formerly noteworthy scientists fell under the spell of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And we just couldn't do anything to pray the gay away, as it were. That they just had to be burned at the stake. It was the only way. They quite rightly wouldn't thank us for that lack of foresight, especially if it does, as I suspect it will, merely hasten the day pur descendants are all card carrying Flying Spaghetti Monster Party adherents, because to be anything else, is treason.


 * Exercise caution. If it feels like you might be about to make a mistake, stop, take a step back, reflect on what you do and don't know for certain, and adjust or reaffirm your conclusion. In other words, take a scientific approach. Treat this as if it were an evaluation of evidence, but where the most significant evidence, that which will tip the scales one way or the other, is likely only to be discovered if you find a German speaker who is willing to help you locate and interpret it. Ideally as a neutral party, merely as a translator of sources and explainer of uncontroversial facts about German cultural institutions, such as their universities, museums and media. There must be at least one German on English Wikipedia, surely? Go Into The Light (talk) 11:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * — Go Into The Light (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Question What does "pur" mean? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedias in different languages have different standards for inclusion. Making inferences from one to another is always problematic. In addition, sometimes articles exist simply because nobody has noticed them and nominated them for deletion yet. WP:WAX. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence that German Wikipedia applies a lower bar to scientist notability? If not, it seems safe to assume that they would be broadly the same, i.e., requiring evidence of substantial contributions to their field. And as I thought I had made clear, my argument is not simply "keep, currently exists on German Wikipedia". My argument is that since he is considered notable in German Wikipedia and there is much German language material and context to digest that would seem to be clearly relevant to the English Wikipedia tests of academic notability (awards, coverage, positions), the English Wikipedia editors who deem him non-notable are probably not fully taking into account their limitations when it comes to assessing the notability of German scientists. I have seen no evidence either that German Wikipedia editors have simply not noticed they have a biography of this man on their Wikipedia, indeed there is evidence on their talk page to suggest the opposite. In the event the German biography is deleted at some future time, then of course I would be perfectly happy to reconsider my position. But the mere possibility that might one day happen, is not really relevant to the matter at hand here, because my vote was based largely on what I was able to glean from the German biography. Go Into The Light (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not say that the German article had gone unnoticed; I wrote that ometimes articles exist simply because nobody has noticed them and nominated them for deletion yet (emphasis added). Taking the trouble to nominate a page for deletion is a non-negligible effort, which not everyone bothers to do. In any case, nothing in the German Wikipedia article specifically contributes to our standards for notability. We can't base an argument on hypothetical sources that might exist. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I doubt you seriously believe that German Wikipedia editors are just that lazy/stupid when compared to English Wikipedia editors. If the second largest Wikipedia is effectively non-functional, then you might as well stop even trying to pretend Wikipedia is a global effort. I wonder how many German Wikipedia editors would be appalled to hear their English counterparts think so little of them. I suspect you are just trying to grasp at any excuse to ignore the basic fact that it really is going to be hard to explain to curious journalists, if this article is deleted, why English Wikipedia editors completely ignored the fact that this man has a long standing biography in German Wikipedia, and there is absolutely no reason to believe as you claim, that they are either unaware of this controversy, or have lower inclusion standards. If you know different, if this was more than just a hypothetical, the time to present your evidence would be now. Contrary to your claim, I have already gone to great lengths to detail what there is in that German Wikipedia biography that would be relevant to this debate, specifically the claims he discovered a "missing link" in the fossil record, that he won an award from the Volkswagen Evolution Foundation, that he has been a guest and been interviewed on various German print and broadcast media, and that he graduated summa cum laude. These all speak to the English language tests for academic notability, even if the German bar is lower, which I seriously doubt. If you want to claim it's fine for English Wikipedia to ignore these claims because the references they appear in are in a foreign language and/or on a different Wikipedia, so their true worth to this debate cannot yet be fully known, that is your right. But if you want to claim they don't exist, you do not have a very good case, because they're right there in black and white. I am a journalist, so I don't tend to write about things that I haven't seen with my own eyes. You are also conveniently ignoring that I have also referred to the German language sources that are used in this article, specifically this interview by Ernst Probst. Again, you can argue it should be ignored because it's in German, but you can't deny it exists, because it is right there, in black and white. It has been there all along as far as I can see, even when people have been claiming on this very page, including you, that this man has not received "significant coverage" for his work as a scientist. Profile level coverage. Well, would you like to revise that statement, given that to a non-German speaker, that looks like it could be one of the claimed interviews by German media arising from his important discoveries (plural) in the fossil record? Ernst Probst has no English Wikipedia article, but according to German Wikipedia, he is a science journalist and author with numerous works to his name. Are you seriously going to suggest this information is not relevant to this debate? Indeed, that systemic bias might not be a risk factor here at all? That by sheer coincidence, it is two for two here, or so it seems. That English Wikipedia not only fail to acknowledge the existence of notable German scientists, they fail to acknowledge the notable authors that interview them? Are you honestly going to suggest that it might not be useful to get a German speaker to confirm my suspicion that this is an in depth interview by an independent reliable source, which would probably be enough, alongside the mentions of his name in reliable news sources like Science Daiy and New Scientist in a non-trivial fashion, to call this a pass under even the English Wikipedia test of general notability, factoring how difficult that is to pass for persons outside the Anglosphere, never mind the test for academics (which theoretically should be even easier to assess from across a language barrier given science is a topic where cultural factors matter less than testable achievements, but not if you refuse to even look at foreign language sources). I am only expending this many words on this issue, I am only enduring the smears (the COI accusation), insults ("n00b") and general disrespect ("wall of text", typo picking) that I have been met with already, to prove that it is not journalists who are the problem here. If English Wikipedia editors choose to ignore inconvenient facts, if they leave people no choice but to wonder, did they really delete his biography as revenge for the heresy of converting to the Dark Side, it is entirely their fault. I am giving you (collectively) every chance to prove that, as was claimed, "we really are trying to do the right thing here". The right thing to do here would be to find a German to examine these sources and explain their contents and context, preferably as a neutral party. The wrong thing to do here, would be to pretend like you (as a collective) don't even hear me saying that, or worse, want to accuse me of having an ulterior motive for saying it. If Chris Troutman has good reason to believe I have an "external relationship" to this man, now would be the time for him to demonstrate that he hears and understands my request that I might be allowed to know on what grounds he has made that accusation (via a warning on my talk page). Other than the mere fact I disagree with his attempt to delete this article. Go Into The Light (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The only thing that's relevant here are links to reliable source coverage that responds to the various objections on notability and fringe grounds. Nothing on other language Wikipedias is relevant to this discussion except insofar as there's in-depth reliable source coverage there that you can link to here. They're all separate projects with different standards, and it's not necessary to draw direct comparisons because it doesn't matter if we're talking about German, Spanish, Tagalog, or Latin (yes, there's a Latin Wikipedia for some reason). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 01:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to the interview by Probst. It looks to be the place where the claims regarding graduation and positions will be found. This appears to be the link where "missing link" is referred to. This appears to be the confirmation of the Volkswagen award, albeit a non-independent source. You can find lots of information with which to verify media appearances at the bottom of this link. But as I have already said, you are not likely to be able to judge these properly without a German speaker/resident to interpret them, especially when it comes to the significance of those media appearances. There are likely other links to be found too, and it is regrettable that it appears to be your attitude to have assumed that they simply didn't exist, that I had perhaps imagined them, or worse. Because you could have located all of these quite easily for yourself if you were properly following what I had said, rather than assuming I was merely babbling on about stuff that isn't "relevant". As for this claim that German Wikipedia has different (i.e. lower) standards or that it is not relevant at all that there is a long standing biography there other than what links can be farmed from it, I will not repeat what I have already said - if you had something relevant to say on that matter, I assume you would have said it. I have said what I have said, because I believe it is necessary to draw those comparisons. If you disagree, fine, but first make sure that, like this issue of relevant links, you haven't merely assumed I don't know what I am talking about. Go Into The Light (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing has actually changed since last time. And people don't become notable as a result of freakouts over our deletion of biographies, we should probably include that as a specific disqualifying criterion for notability. Guy (help!) 13:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel compelled to comment following the note below from, whose opinion I greatly respect. My main issue with this article is that, far from being dleeted solely because he is a creationist, it appears to have been created solely for that reason. The opriginal creator is , who has exactly one edit to Wikipedia, creating this aerticle. Most of the content was written by . I note that DGG was WP:CANVASSed here by with a deceptive statement that he "recently" re-created the article based on his researches. Actually Valoem had it undeleted and userfied in February 2018, not long after the last DRV. So yes I do think a POV-push is going on, and I think it is the exact opposite of the one being claimed. Meanwhile, there has been no substantive change in the subject since deletion. Guy (help!) 10:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not ever say I recreated the article show me where I said that. I restore the article added new sources and removed all cruft, the only one being deceptive here is you. You don't like the subject I get that you hate "fringe" that is not in dispute. But as per WP:CANVASS under Appropriate notification: Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), therefore this was not canvassing. Also DGG, who is an ArbCom member, made a statement on his talk page where he said, what you are doing here is highly inappropriate. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 16:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think my interest in this topic was well-known, though I participated in only some of the discussions. It's part of my general interest in people notable in their field who sometimes do not get due coverage here for their unorthodox views.  DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But it was still contacting a person known to favourt inclusion of this specific article, and the notice was still deceptive in pretty much every material respect. Guy (help!) 22:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you not think it is equally deceptive to claim that the subject of this article created it, without noting that he is already on record as having denied this (irrespective of whether you believe him). It's not like that denial was hard to find, so you just have been aware of it. Similarly, your claim that he likely created it precisely because he was already a creationist and was therefore planning all along to abuse Wikipedia by making them host his CV as a non-notable scientist, without explaining what your evidence for that for actually is. I had thought your proof for this claim was his conversion to Catholism circa 2003, but you denied that. So on what basis did you make that claim? Do you still stand by it, given it doesn't really seem to fit the basic facts at all, such as the fact he apparently waited quite a few years into his religious life before creating it (in 2012), but then waited a further four years before adding to it himself, that he now believed in ID. It was a very strange theory all round, less believable than Wikipedia deletes notable scientist as revenge for coming out for ID certainly is. Would you care to summarise it here, in a place that will remain publicly visible in the even of a deletion? Go Into The Light (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to read WP:MEATPUPPET. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I was contacted by a person who wants to delete the BLP. You will note that I voted Keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC).

<ul><li>Keep, I am pinging Guy Macon because I appreciate the due diligence you have done and would like to respond to your comment. I am ambivalent toward the idea or concept that Wikipedia is trying to delete creationists, however the media has noticed Bechly's deletion from Wikipedia which is a tremendously rare event regarding deletion of articles. I am entirely unaware and have not seen any evidence of a creationist push on this encyclopedia for lower standards of inclusion. I will highlight some sources which are reliable and based from a scientific and secular viewpoint.<ol> <li> The article notes: "Peter Vršanský from the Geological Institute in Bratislava, Slovakia, and Günter Bechly from the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany, who examined the insect, say its long neck, which allows the head to rotate freely, and unusually long legs, suggest that it actively pursued prey. The fossilised insect, called Manipulator modificaputis, was discovered at a mine in Noije Bum, Myanmar."</li> <li> The article notes: "Geologica Carpathica has a paper on a new family of predatory cockroaches. Predatory? The authors, Peter Vrsansky and Günter Bechly, from the Slovak Republic and Germany, respectively, said that 'unique adaptations such as strongly elongated extremities and freely movable head on a long neck suggest that these animals were pursuit predators.'"</li> <li> The article notes: "Günter Bechly, a devout Catholic from Germany, had a promising academic career as a paleontologist. He had published numerous papers in prestigious, peer-review journals – including groundbreaking studies he conducted into the evolution of dragonfly wings – and was even a curator at Stuttgart’s State Museum of Natural History. At least until 2016. That’s when he first came out against evolution and in favor of intelligent design. He found himself embraced by the religious right in the United States, becoming a pawn in their political struggle over the world’s origin story."</li> <li> The article notes: If a respected scientist endorses a controversial view, should he or she be erased from history? The editors at Wikipedia think so, but only if the controversial opinion is one they personally dislike.
 * Delete per WP:FRINGEBLP. There are people who are notable for their fringe positions. This person is not. As WP:ACADEMIC, he seems to fail as well. jps (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

That's precisely what happened to a respected German paleontologist, Günter Bechly. His biography on Wikipedia has been deleted. Poof. Gone. It's like he never existed.

According to German Wikipedia, where a version of Dr. Bechly's page (which appears to have been created in 2012) still exists, he was once an atheist and supporter of Richard Dawkins. Now, he is a devoted Catholic and, as of 2016, an outspoken proponent of Intelligent Design. For that crime, the English version of Wikipedia erased him from history1. </li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bechly to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The first two sources include New Scientist and Phys.org which highlight accomplishments he achieved in the scientific community. But the two ladder sources directly criticize his deletion from Wikipedia. Haaretz is an Israeli newspaper founded in 1918 and the second is the American Council on Science and Health. None of these are related to Christian websites attempting to lower inclusion criteria, they are academic sources. But most importantly is this source which says "[Bechly] has authored or co-authored about 150 scientific publications, including a co-edited book published by Cambridge University Press and a popular science book on evolution. He has discovered and named more than 160 new species, and has 10 biological groups named in his honor. He has served on the editorial boards of two scientific journals, and has organized five large public exhibitions on Earth history and evolution. He has been interviewed widely in German media and served as a science advisor for two natural history documentaries on the BBC."

The 4 source above clearly indicates he passes WP:N and WP:GNG, but having discovered 160 new species and having 10 biological groups named in his honor indicates he also passes WP:NACADEMICS particularly #1: The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. The articles regarding other creationists shows that this encyclopedia does include creationists. My question is why are those creationists more notable than this one? Based on the sources I've provided, he appears to be equally notable to most of the creationists you have listed. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 01:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * Just to note, the American Council on Science and Health is a lobbying group known for seeking funding from manufacturers, not a reliable source. . . dave souza, talk 08:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The first two sources you outline cite an expert. I have also been cited in these websites giving my expert opinion. That is nothing on which to base a biographical article. The third source documents the WP:ONEEVENT controversy we're dealing with. The fourth source is a polemic written from what I would charitably call a "motivated" position (ACSH, for example, endorsed climate change denial among other positions). jps (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing you said is based in policy, these are reliable sources, if a publication has a writer who endorse climate change denial does that remove the publication as a reliable source entirely including other authors? The main issues is does discovering 160 species and having "10 biological groups named in his honor" not add to notability? Perhaps he is a quack now, but his prior work in the field is certainly notable, but none of this is relevant in the debate of notability. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 01:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear. Seems I hit a nerve. I assure you, what I wrote deals with many policies. To name a few: WP:BLP, WP:SIGCOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:PROF, WP:ONEEVENT.... Ironically, while I think it's perfectly fine in the course of discussion to argue that someone who discovers 160 species is automatically notable, until WP:160SPECIES is a policy that has consensus, I'm going to say that this really isn't a good argument. jps (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Self-publication is not reliable we know that, can you provide the same level of coverage for yourself? If you can perhaps I'll write one on you if you'd like. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 02:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * YIKES! Please, no. I don't want a Wikipedia biography of myself. jps (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We are the old guards now I think, but I remember a quote you had on the old user name about "their livers need de-yellowing", I liked that one if you could send me that quote, I'd appreciate it. I do agree with you quite often, but not in this case. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 02:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Rings a bell, but I do not have access to that quote at my fingertips. If I come across it, I'll be sure to pass it along. jps (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The first two sources you outline cite an expert. I have also been cited in these websites giving my expert opinion. That is nothing on which to base a biographical article. I concur. I've also been cited here and there for the same reasons, and I'm not wiki-notable either. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Journalists were specifically told to expect this process was about giving a "lot of thought" to whether or not the general or academic tests for notability are passed here. You "co-signed" that message. You would expect, therefore, that the debate would not be misdirected down the quite frankly irrelevant issue of what you or anyone else think of whether or not you would pass. It is also not helpful to merely wave away the reason why this person got mentioned in these sources, or their specific word choices in doing so, as if it just doesn't matter, or ignore the rather obvious fact that it is not expected that you should be able to base a full biography on them, only that they be used to indicate the significance of the person's contributions to their field as regards the notability test. All of this is available in the links that journalists were told in that message are the standards Wikipedia editors are using here to help them decide "what to retain and what to delete". Go Into The Light (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Just consider for the moment as an entomologist, he has done sufficient work to show him an authority on his subject. In the past, all other people whose articles have been taken to afd and have discovered even a single species have been considered notable enough for Wikipedia (as I explained at he 2nd DRV, "This was an example of an afd where a scientist with an orthodox and notable record in their field, was held to a much higher standard because they were also a creationist. It has always with everyone else here where the question was raised at AfD, that discovering new species is an indication of notability (not having a species merely named after oneself, because the discoverer can name it after anyone or anything they please.) And he did discover quite a number of new species and also described at least one high classification. That in particular is expertise amount to recognition by ones peers."). He is also secondarily notable for the controversy, for which there are excellent references from Science Daiy and New Scientist on the usual nature of a respected and orthodox biologist have divergent views on evolution. (he apparently does not deny it took place, but think it has been divinely directed). The actual though usually not conscious reason for deletion that must lie behind this is the view, expressed frankly in some of the remarks above, that we should not be giving publicity to non-standard views about evolution; and particularly, as has been the case with other scientists with other views we do not approve of on other subjects, that we must especially avoid giving anyone the idea that someone holding fringe views on a topic, could possibly be a notable scientist in his own area. This is about as complete of misunderstanding of NPOV and FRINGE as can be imagined, and is counterproductive even on its own terms. Here's why:
 * If someone who does not yet understand the correctness of evolution comes here, and finds that we do not include information about those current scientists who are opposed tot he orthodox views on evolution, they would naturally conclude that we are deliberately presented a biased view, just as we would say are to to find an resource that does the opposite. We can only convince people who are in doubt by remaining absolutely neutral, and judging everyone in a field on equal terms, purely on the basis of their own importance as judged by the sources regardless of their views on other topics. We cannot pretend they don't exist. Of course it puzzles me that one can be a notable entomologist and still misunderstand the  key theoretical basis of all of biological science, but so it is, and there's nothing to gain from trying to hide from it. As  said recently on a related issue on my talk page at  I am as fundamentalist anti-fringe as they come, but you are absolutely on the nail here. The process needs to be robust, fair and repeatable, and not favour those who are loudest or most committed. The fact is, some bullshit has significant minority support, and it's not our job to fix that.
 * As an biologist myself,   I want to know about those who think there is insufficient support for it. I want to know their views because I would consider my own understanding deficient if I did not find myself able to refute them.  DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for anybody else, but I'd !vote to delete an article on a non-creationist with the same citation record and smattering of press mentions, had the deletion of a prior Wikipedia article about them been a similar flash-in-the-pan. Giving publicity to creationism does not enter my calculation at all, one way or the other. ScienceDaily is a news aggregator with no standards, and New Scientist is a sensationalist rag; if anyone evaluated my life's work by what they wrote of me, I'd be a little sad. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * DGG is something of a (radical?) inclusionist when it comes to academics. At one point he argued that we should have articles on all full professors (or those with equivalent academic rank). When I pointed out that it might not be possible to move much beyond a stub phase for such an article, he seemed okay with that. My concern here is actually that the WP:FRINGE controversy is making it seem like the person is more notable than he is. But if someone wants to start a WP:SPECIESDISCOVERER policy, I guess that would make things simpler. I note that Wikipedia now has articles on many secondary schools when in the past they were summarily deleted. jps (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * it remains not a written guideline, but I have for at least 10 years almost never seen an article on a full professor at a major university deleted for lack of notability unless there is some degree of prejudice against the field or the individual, as there used to be about some fields dominated by women. I've !voted against or deleted thousands of articles on academics who don't meet the standards for WP:PROF or for other reasons. It's hard to count, but I may have removed or helped remove more articles in this field than anyone here. The usual complaint is that I don't support articles on beginning academics who might become notable some day. People do not actually become full professors at a major research university unless their true peers judge them influential enough in their field to attract other scholars. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not complaining. It's good to have many thoughtful sides in these discussions. jps (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * When reliable sources cover the deletion of an article it is a huge deal. But even if we discard articles written about his deletion from the encyclopdiea, he would still pass WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMICS. The discovery of 160 species is not a trivial matter, this person far surpasses a standard academic professor. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 04:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've heard the argument before that all species discoverers are notable. I don't understand how that can possibly be. The problem is that simply discovering a species (or even 160 species) does not mean that there are sources that exist which would let us write a biography. jps (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources will be in the citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC).
 * Color me unconvinced. If I cite a colleague, I rarely give enough information for someone to write even a single sentence in a biography about them. jps (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * the relevant key biographical content of an article on a scientist is their scientific work, which is documented in their publications and proved influential by the citations to them. As for the discoverer of a species, their name and their work is attached to that organism forever, and will be recorded in all further work and all reference books that cover not just that species, but the entire group of organisms.   DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. We can make mention of a discoverer at wikispecies, even. That doesn't exactly tell us how to write a standalone biography. I suppose there's a Wikipedia model where we simply list all the species. That makes for many kB of text, but it hardly seems WP:ENCy to me! jps (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In my recollection, determining the wiki-notability of taxonomists has been particularly difficult. What seems significant from one perspective may pale to near triviality when evaluated from another. The Paleobiology Database contains, at the moment, 423,762 taxa. Quoting Insect biodiversity: Estimates of the total number of insect species or those within specific orders are often highly variable. Globally, averages of these predictions estimate there are around 1.5 million beetle species and 5.5 million insect species with around 1 million insect species currently found and described. Thousands of insect species are discovered every year . To identify, from among all the contributors to that dizzying amount of data, the individuals who should have Wikipedia articles, requires documented signifiers that just don't exist here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * what makes it feasible is that is is common for one person to discover many species--even many thousands of species, if they're studying beetles in the Amazon. DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All it takes is choosing to work with a fossil site or insect group that doesnt have much/any modern study. What makes you think its hard to find new species?-- Kev  min  § 17:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "finding a species" involves knowing the details of the entire group of relevant related species, and knowing them well enough to recognize when the differences amount to a species. With fossils, it involves doing this with fragmentary material. (I am not a taxonomist, but I've worked with some as a science librarian.) It bears somewhat the same relationship as part of evolutionary biology as writing an article here is to making an encyclopedia.  The best introduction I know to all that this implies is The Beak Of The Finch a wonderful book, and readable, based on the work of two of the most fascinating people I have ever known. And I have followed (as an amateur) the work of discovering and reclassifying the small number of   species in   one particular genus all my life, and seen how it changes, and will change, and the hundreds of books it has inspired.  DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As the 2011 interview makes clear, it is significant that this man was chosen as the curator of the amber collection in the Stuttgart Museum, because it is one of the largest in academic hands, it being more common that these important fossil records are often spirited away into private collections. You need a large collection because only a tiny fraction of all insect in amber specimens might even be a new species, let alone a "missing link", which are rather obviously the highest value objects. This brings us to why it might be important for a German speaker to tell us if there is any reason to believe it was this man's excellent performance in his academic training, that secured him this apparently significant post in this field. At the moment, it seems rather obvious he didn't arrive there by dumb luck, and his work is likely harder than just rocking up in the Amazon with a smoke machine and some jars. Go Into The Light (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As an actual entomologist, I will chime in that it isn't normal to consider someone notable here for merely discovering/naming species. That is generally well within the bounds of the "average professor test" over at WP:NPROF. In this field, it's common to describe new species if you are a taxonomist of some sort. We'd need something above the norm, which hasn't really been established here yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment As this Nature paper confirms, this man did more than merely discover lots of new species ....... when I see phrases like missing link, key innovation and main event as it pertains to evolution in the fossil record, even I know as a lay person, that there is more to this man's career than run of the mill science, where merely discovering new things is your job description. It speaks of someone who is making significant contributions to their field. Someone who would definitely deserve to be called an "expert" by a publication whose stock in trade is to report on what scientists have done that week. Go Into The Light (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't know whether to laugh or cry at this. Just a tip: When trying to claim that someone is a giant in science, maybe don't go on and on about how a paper in Scientific Reports where they are second author is the same as some sort of breakthrough published in Nature (journal)? jps (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Other than your straw men and general mockery, are you making a specific point here? One that pertains to the academic test for notability. Yes, Nature and nature.com are not the same, but it is still a peer reviewed journal, published by the Nature group. So what exactly are you alleging? That the second author just cleans the beakers or something? That these phrases are not accurate? Fraudulent, even? Or this is just not some sort of a breakthrough in your eyes, as a person who may (or may not) have relevant expertise. You are a scientist, but your field appears to be Astronomy, which I would have thought offers not much more insight into this area than a layman could infer. Go Into The Light (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "[A]s a lay person" you may not have known the difference between Scientific Reports and Nature. Now you do. jps (talk) 06:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You have not answered my questions. Go Into The Light (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am under no obligation to answer your questions and don't see much point in answering them. jps (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, this is what irritated me about that "message to journalists", because I know for a fact that in this venue, you are under an obligation to answer legitimate concerns if you have an expectation of being heard (or of this process in general being seen as an exercise in deep thinking as regards the application of things like the academic notability test). In this case, I have the legitimate concern that your strawman arguments and general mockery are cover for the fact you don't actually have any reason to believe that the claims in that paper are unreliable, and therefore you're not actually offering any (relevant) arguments regarding the test of academic notability. The point of doing the latter would seem obvious, at least as far as what journalists were told this process is all about. In short, with this talk to the hand arrogant attitude you're displaying now, it is likely your intent with your first mocking reply was simply to insult me, simply because you don't agree with my interpretation of the evidence as it pertains to the significance of this man's contribution to his field. I leave it to you to ponder what your obligations are with regard to not insulting people, and what this all means for the likelihood of anyone being persuaded that there is any reason to think Wikipedia editors were unfairly treated in the critical commentary that followed the first deletion. In summary, journalists are not half as stupid as some Wikipedia editors seem to think they are. They might not know the difference between Nature and nature.com, but they can tell when someone is being elitist and arrogant and generally unhelpful in how they go about offering their claimed expertise in this matter. I will ask you again, just so that the significance of any refusal to answer is understood - was the purpose of your mockery to highlight that the statements in that paper regarding the significance of the discovery, are unreliable for the purposes of Wikipedia, specifically the academic notability test? Go Into The Light (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The reasons to look askance at Scientific Reports include, but are not limited to, those described in our article. That aside, see WP:SECONDARY and WP:INDY; we do not rely upon people's description of their own work. Doubtless it would be easier to do so &mdash; everything would be a breakthrough, and we could go home early and have jam for tea. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, unless Scientific Reports has been formally deemed an unreliable source by Wikipedia, I shall assume it is still seen as a peer reviewed journal, with all that implies. I fear you may be otherwise confused about the concepts in play here - to quote INDY, "Secondary does not mean independent, and primary does not mean non-independent." The academic notability test, criteria 1, only requires an independent source for assessing claims of significant impact, and a paper submitted to a peer reviewed journal is an independent source, by virtue of the editorial process and the lack of a conflict of interest. I would imagine this is because it is going to be quite rare for key developments in certain academic subjects to be picked up by the New York Times et al. He gets coverage in Science Daily and New Scientist, but apparently this is not considered enough by some here. Not really sure why. Perhaps you were misled by the strawmen arguments introduced above - at no time have I claimed that what this man has done, is some kind of "breakthrough" or that he is a "giant in science" such that you would expect lots of secondary coverage of his work. But unless it is being alleged that the paper is fraudulent or that he played no significant part in the work as second author, it is no stretch at all to describe the identification of a missing link in the fossil record which led to a better understanding of precisely when insects evolved from the apparently rather unsuccessful strategy of chewing, to the rather more successful piercing, as a means to eat your chosen dish of the day, which led to a huge proliferation in the number of species, does represent a significant impact in paleoentomology. And as regards criteria 1, it is important to note that this paper is only something like the fourth or fifth highest cited paper by this scientist, which suggests he has even more significant discoveries under his belt. It is dissappointing that the scientists in this debate don't seem to want to help us laymen better understand where this man's achievements might sit in the pantheon of great paleoentomologists, but it seems to already be the case that it is accepted that there is no Hall of Fame, this is not a rockstar field, so it would be wise to pay attention to any reliable claim to significance in the field. Go Into The Light (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, when I see the phrase missing link that implies someone doesn't appreciate the modern understanding of transitional fossil, but that may be a translation thing. Similarly, "run of the mill science, where merely discovering new things is your job description" describes pre-1859 listing species, suggesting the narrow field of taxonomy rather than evolutionary biology. One thing the paper doesn't seem to do is give any credence to ID, presumably it was before him seeing the ID light. . . dave souza, talk 18:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're trying to suggest this man wouldn't have known what a transitional fossil is, and is not offering insights into evolutionary biology with his work, and crucially, this is because he later became an advocate of ID and was therefore likely always a bit of an eejit when it came to this science stuff, I doubt anyone will find that a convincing argument. Certainly not if it is merely your personal opinion lacking any evidentiary basis. The opinion of someone who is apparently a vehement critic of Creationism, someone who has apparently not considered the evidence I have been referring to regarding his education and career attainment. In case you get the wrong idea, I am probably even more of a critic of ID than you are (people with even an amateur interest in evolutionary biology and the biology of the human brain, are probably still the best placed people to convincingly denounce religion in its entirety, for a whole host of reasons, but especially their ability not to talk down to non-scientists). My only concern in this matter is whether or not Wikipedia editors who also absolutely hate Creationism, quite deliberately reassessed their view of this man's scientific achievements in light of their realisation this man had defected to the Dark Side, and deemed him non-notable, where previously he was notable, as a (former) scientist. Comments like yours, which offer an opinion not backed by evidence but absolutely do seem to be a case of reassessing the significance of his career in light of his later heresy, do not seem to give anyone any reason to suspect that is not what happened. I could be swayed if, for example, you had any evidence of reliable sources going back over his previous work and finding fault with it, finding retracted papers perhaps, or even just definitively stating with confidence after his defection, that he was an insignificant scientist doing every day worker-bee stuff. We do not appear to have any of that, otherwise I am sure this debate would have seen it quoted ad nauseam. Absent any hard evidence he was indeed a run of the mill scientist, much less a total chancer faking his way through a science career, well, why would anyone deliberately set aside the admittedly weak evidence that he was a significant scientist in his chosen field, which is a broad enough field to be considered relevant for the purposes of the academic notability test? Other than, of course, bias, both personal and collective. I think I stand with DGG - it's going to be incredibly important for Wikipedia not to hide the fact that converts to Creationism can include even notable former scientists. It does appear to be a fact, albeit an uncomfortable one. It is enough to show that post-conversion, certainly as far as the scientific community is concerned as it is reflected in the peer review process, his work ceases to be relevant after his conversion. An evidence based rejection of Creationism as a science, no bias required. If he even is still doing any scientific work and submitting it for peer review, I literally haven't even checked. Go Into The Light (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I need to say that I do not support all the points in the above paragraph, especially the few sentences. The purpose of this article is supposed to be a neutral presentation, not a proof of anything.  DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That an ID believing scientist can't get his work published on a peer reviewed journal after he declared he believes in Magic Man theories, would be the neutral presentation of events, no? As opposed to arguing a formerly notable scientist ceases to be notable after he says he believes in ID. I am with you in the sense that I think we both think he was Wikipedia notable as a scientist before he even declared for ID. I just think he passes that bar because he has done even more than merely discover new species, or even lots of new species, and it is precisely because of that, there is not even really any need to argue he is notable for the deletion controversy related attention, or any other reason, even though there are some others out there, like appearances on German television, which are presumably related to his work as a scientist. It doesn't hurt to factor it in though, the controversy, since it does at least suggest there are some out there who believe this was definitely a case of (English) Wikipedia trying to punish a notable scientist for declaring for ID. Clearly others disagree, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, insofar as how little engagement I am getting on the academic notability / systemic bias angle. It remains the case that people who profess to be far more experienced with Wikipedia than me, genuinely seem to think they're going to fool journalists into thinking this man was never notable, because the New York Times never detailed his breakfast cereal preferences. An exaggeration, but hopefully one that makes the point. It matters not that he doesn't seem to have significant coverage in secondary sources that would prove he is generally notable, it suffices to explain that thus far nobody seems interested in the argument that these sources don't necessarily have to be in English, that this level of fame if you will, is rare for even the most well known in this field, and for all those reasons, Wikipedia has, or at least claims to have, different methods for measuring how significant an academic is. This debate is about testing the evidence against them. Rather than, for example, asking what "pur" means, twice, like I'm the sort of idiot who gives trolls the attention they so clearly crave. I mean, people can do that, it's a free website, but when others start claiming their side of the story isn't being told, well, that's when it's time to start highlighting what actually passes muster here as far as trying to "do the right thing". Go Into The Light (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest that he wording you use indicates   inadequate understanding of the varieties of ID: theories of ID can be very subtle. They can agree withe standard evolutionary interpretation of all the events in the evolution of life--and of  the universe, and accept the standard ways of evaluating theories . The contribution of actual Darwinism as distinct for ID, is that we Darwinists hold that these natural events alone are sufficient to have caused the present word; A believer in ID thinks otherwise, but they may well place the divine role as far back as the events before the first definable time at the beginning of the universe.. It Is very easy to refute young earth creationists, it is much harder to refute those who, when we try to deal with what we cannot yet actually explain, propose an equally unexplainable alternative.  My conviction they are wrong rests on the knowledge that they have had to retreat further and further into the past to find such a point. Something unknown is equally evidence for anything.   DGG ( talk ) 10:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the relevant piece of information is what Dave has now latched onto (as opposed to answering relevant points about his pre-2016 career) and I happen to agree with - a scientists who leaves a respected institution to join the Discovery Institute, isn't likely to be the sort of scientist whose ID beliefs are confined to before the Big Bang. Or is going to be content on just keep doing unbiased science, especially in the field of evolution, without trying to insert ID crankery in there somewhere. That is the whole point of ID after all, some desperate hope of proving the existence of God, through science. It's nonsense. And that's the neutral view for Wikipedia, which is rightfully pro-science, I would say. None of that affects whether or not he was a real scientist doing significant work before his conversion (unless JzG comes through with his claimed proof he was a cuckoo in the nest all along), and Wikipedia should reflect that. Rather than trying to cover it up by some creative reinterpretaion of their academic notability test and/or a knowing exploitation of systemic bias. Go Into The Light (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The question is whether his scientific work is notable, and since he claims to have continued publishing in mainstream journals there may be post 2016 work that is worthy, but good reliable independent sources are needed for notability. Oddly enough, he's now working for various DI "research" outfits including the Biologic Institute which has so far failed to produce any science, or much of anything. If he gets prominent mainstream coverage for his creationist stuff then that would show notability and he could, like his favourite scientist Stephen C. Meyer, have a Wikipedia article. Either way, it doesn't affect my !vote. . . . dave souza, talk 18:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would you say "claims to" there? It's an easily testable statement. He either has or hasn't. I haven't looked, and I don't care, because when I looked, there was more than enough proof that he had made a significant impact before he left the museum to go work on the kook farm. Is there indeed anything from before 2016 that is going to affect your vote? If not, why not? Because that doesn't really make sense as far as Wikipedia notabiltiy goes. It does make sense if you are judging his work in light of his conversion. As I think I may have already said, is there any evidence that his prior work has been called into question because of it? The more people focus on the ID angle here, the less likely anyone will believe it wasn't relevant. And given the timeline, it clearly isn't relevant to why he obtained, and retained, a Wikipedia biography. It was only apparently relevant to why he lost one. Go Into The Light (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, DGG, well said. Just a refinement: as the second of Walsh's books (which google categorises as religion) discusses, Kenneth R. Miller places the divine role outwith science, and as a devout Catholic he robustly defends both mainstream science and theistic evolution, while opposing ID. As noted below, Bechly has worked for the DI since 2016, if he manages to produce scientific research at the DI's Biologic Institute that would be a first for that organisation, and no doubt would get extensive coverage. . . dave souza, talk 11:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * [@ Go Into The Light] That's a typical ID conspiracy theory, but irrelevant to the significance or otherwise of his inclusion on teams studying transitional fossils before he joined the DI. Reliable independent sources needed. . dave souza, talk 15:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have provided at least one independent reliable source, and I have made a convincing argument that others will exist, if people only made the effort to locate a German speaker/resident to help find and interpret them, rather than continuing this fantasy that more English speaking people doing the same cursory Google searches is going to yield different results. It is the very fact you thought I was referring to a conspiracy theory, rather than the simple fact that the bias of an ID believing scientist would be evident in any peer review post conversion, is showing your bias here. You don't see significant work here because it goes against your bias. You're already convinced he was just an unremarkable "team member" in a team whose work was unremarkable anyway. Because he later converted to ID. Go Into The Light (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, DGG. Just to clarify, my comment referred to several remarks by Go Into The Light, for example "a 'missing link', which are rather obviously the highest value objects." From my amateur understanding, transitional fossils can be commonplace. In some instances such as Tiktaalik and Darwinius they get a lot of (sometimes undue) publicity, which doesn't seem to have happened with Bechly. . . . dave souza, talk 14:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Highest value there referred to monetary, not scientific, value. If you had read the interview, you might have understood that point. It is all about how hard it is for museums to even get their hands on amber specimens that would be more important than whatever you might understand is a commonplace transitional fossil. The source I linked to gives everyone every chance to understand why the phrase "missing link" was used there, such as to convey rarity/importance of the find, and what it meant for advancing the scientific understanding of the "tree of life" (insect branch). Go Into The Light (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If it meant much, puffery about "missing links" wouldn't be relevant. What reliable independent sources published assessments of its significance, and show notability of its second author? . . dave souza, talk 15:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As I have already explained above, just because that is his paper, does not mean it is not independent for the purposes of the academic notability test. It is your bias that makes you believe it is unreliable and therefore contains "puffery" rather than a factual description of the significance of the work, or that its second author merely cleaned the beakers. And as I have already said before, that is only something like his fifth most cited paper, which also speaks to his likely academic notability. Go Into The Light (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Let me make this clear, I was not even aware he was a creationist until I read it in this AFD, hell I did not even read the article, just checked the sources out. Stop trying to imply some bias here.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * At what point is it reasonable to request an admin ban a new account WP:SPA who is derailing a discussion and contributing nothing else to Wikipedia per WP:NOTHERE? Asking for a friend. jps (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing it would be the point that someone makes the case that I am not engaging in good faith, and/or that I am not making arguments that are reasonable interpretations of policy, and/or that my singular interest in this topic is explained by some nefarious motive (I note Chris Troutman never got back to me on that score), or indeed outlined any reason at all to ban me that would actually be justifiable. I'm sorry to have upset you by reminding you of your obligations up above, but I didn't write the rules. My ears did prick up when a "message to journalists" was written here that implied a dunderhead like me couldn't possibly understand the complex intricacies of this place. Well, how am I doing thus far? Asking for myself. Go Into The Light (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I still want to know what "pur" means. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * https://www.buttersafe.com/2020/07/30/the-ocean-if-full-of-fish/ --Guy Macon (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep He is a notable person. For better understanding I have included his publication list from the German article in this article. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As WP:PROF says, Having published work does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. I do mean this honestly, why is it always the psuedosciency 'academics' which generate the most controversy/canvassing when they're nominated for deletion? (on a smaller scale this AfD reminds me of this and this pre major page refactoring). The same doesn't seem to happen with 'regular' academics. Anyway, doesn't seem like a particularly notable academic, or a particularly notable 'fringe theorist'. The existing sources aren't quite it, a quick search shows coverage on him being dominated by Discovery Institute (I haven't checked, but guessing it's not an RS). To avoid making this long AfD longer, the rest of my opinion concurs with David Eppstein and XOR'easter. The Haaretz article is the closest to notability here, and that article is about his article being deleted, not really about him inherently. I don't think that leads to notability for his own biography. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete based purely on WP:NPROF considerations (the popular coverage cited is not substantially about him, and the Haaretz thing should be discounted for obvious reasons - we don't generate our own notability). No substantial awards/honors, as a non-university-affiliated scientist he misses out on the named chair/high institutional position options, the citation record is good but not great (I'm getting on to match these numbers, and I'm a lazy postdoc), having described species is not and has never been an automatic shoo-in (contrary to what DGG surprisingly claims), and the impact on the discipline as presented in the article and sources is not extraordinary. Don't care about the creationist angle in particular; if it generates sufficient friction that the general press starts writing about it at length, then it feeds into GNG, but absent that it doesn't make him more or less notable as an academic or a General Person. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The academic notability test only requires significant impact, not "extraordinary". And it is not being argued by me at least that he is entitled to an automatic pass simply for having discovered speicies, or even a lot of them. Regarding specific honors/awards/positions, have you any comment in what I have said on those things, specifically the relevance of this being a German scientist working in Germany, and the standing if the Stuttgart museum in the field? It is not relevant where you personally think your work would land you on the Wikipedia scales, especially if by your own admission, you only "dabble" in the field. Go Into The Light (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you please give examples of scientists with orthodox views who have discovered multiple species and have been deleted? <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 23:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of scientists with orthodox views who have discovered multiple species who don't have Wikipedia pages. They haven't had their pages deleted because they didn't have one of their buddies try to create a page about them:


 * "The article was created by a colleague at our museum and subsequently expanded by myself" --Dr. Günter Bechly 11:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is a partial list of scientists with orthodox views who have discovered multiple species who don't have Wikipedia pages: I can easily come up with a couple of hundred more if you wish.
 * Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz (See Articles for deletion/Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz.)
 * Vreni Haussermann
 * Weeyawat Jaitrong
 * Sumukha Javagal
 * Rajashree Khalap
 * Bryan Lessard
 * Marie Verheye
 * Seiki Yamane
 * Decha Wiwatwitaya

Let's just look at Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz: "Biologists Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz and Marie Verheye of the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences have discovered no less than 28 new amphipod species in Antarctica." --Guy Macon (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey! Hit 0:00 on the nose! Do I get a prize? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You showed me scientist who never had articles, if I created one on any of them they would not be deleted. I'll create one on Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz when I get the chance. I want to see an example scientist who had discovered multiple species and had their articles deleted. Your argument is nullified by WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Just because something does not have an article does not mean they can't have one. Hey! Hit 0:12 on the nose! Do I get a prize? <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 00:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No prize for 12 minutes after 0:00... :( --Guy Macon (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Haha, I put in the wrong time. :) <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 00:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, really, you've got it the wrong way round: you will have to show that having described a species was a successful Keep argument (in isolation, I might add - because that's what you seem to claim). I could demonstrate the problem here in an entirely pointy way: by creating an article each about the three guys I share an office with. They are postdocs at the beginning of their career, they have a dozen papers to their name of which none reaches triple citation digits, and as avid field entomologists they each have between 2 and 5 descriptions of coleoptera, thrips, and similar small fry to their name. These guys are, by any of our criteria, a long way from notable, and their articles would not last a minute here. Them having multiple species descriptions to their name is not an exceptional thing, because describing species is easy when that's your profession. I'm not sure whether paleo-entomologists have it harder or easier; worse preservation but good chance of hoeing a furrow that no-one else has worked yet. - So, as most academic achievements, it's a factor, but it's a not a free ticket to notability. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You are right, but Bechly achievements are not trivial he has been covered by reliable sources for discovering 160 species with 10 named in his honor. This is not a free ticket, but an earned ticket per WP:GNG. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 00:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fails WP:PROF, fails WP:GNG. Read those two pages and quote the part where discovering insect species or choosing to name some of them ad=fter yourself automaticly confers notability. Exact quoute from the guideline, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz: 131 publications on researchgate:
 * Günter Bechly: 107 publications on researchgate:
 * Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz: 344 results on Google Scholar, highest-cited publication cited 2109 times:
 * Günter Bechly: 376 results on Google Scholar, highest-cited publication cited 411 times:
 * I hope this helps... --Guy Macon (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Does that mean they are equally notable, I'll write very poor stub on Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz and see if it gets nominated. So the issue here with Bechly is COI not nobility? <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 00:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz, I hope you understand I am someone you want to work with. I am always willing to help, and as per these people are notable. Whenever I run into someone who is notable I make an article of the person regardless of field. I think Bechly is more notable than Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz please let me know how you feel. I made an article on both. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 04:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds wp:pointy. More constructively, for paleobeasties in amber, Jens Franzen has an article at Jens Lorenz Franzen – that would be a good start for a useful contribution. . dave souza, talk 00:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not pointy these people are notable. I transwikied it please correct any errors. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 04:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Looks to me like it needs more sources, but pretty sure they can be found so it's a good start. . . dave souza, talk 09:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You think that creating a Wikipedia page for a non-notable biologist just because he was used as an example of a non-notable biologist in an AfD isn't disrupting the encyclopedia to prove a WP:POINT? If you create pages for every non-notable biologist I listed I will simply nominate them all for deletion, the community will once again decide that simply discovering some species or publishing some papers does not make you notable (This is explained at Notability (academics)) and -- unless you find some evidence of notability for some of them that Günter Bechly lacks -- they will be deleted. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Because he is a notable biologist having reliable sources which shows him to have discovered over 28 species. AfD it, I would love to see that outcome. Your list was a point in itself so please don't try to reverse this. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 05:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: The nom's argument is not only persuasive, I don't feel the various sources presented here are persuasive. "Significant coverage" = significant coverage, and namedrops and casual mentions don't transform into sigcov merely because they're wrapped inside an otherwise-reliable source. Beyond that, while the position's chief proponent has been indeffed, the existence of an article on the German Wikipedia is quite irrelevant.  That Wikipedia has its standards; we have ours.   Ravenswing      06:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails NPROF, I just don't see a major publication, seems very average for this time in his career. Mind, if this deletion discussion gets in the news and gets SIGCOV it might be back here in a week or so. I'd reconsider if this was shown to be a particularly good record for this field, or evidence that he was a tenured professor etc. PainProf (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Signfiicant coverage is not required by the academic notability test, only evidence of significant impact. There are already good reasons to suspect that their specific museum position is what someone with a particularly good record in this field could/would obtain. The same can be said of being selected to organise the exhibition for which he was given an award (now only mentioned in his German Wikipedia biography, for whatever reason). Which neatly brings us back to secondary coverage - most of it appears to be in German language sources, or indeed just via German popular culture (TV media etc). There appears to be a concerted effort here on the part of English Wikipedia, to just pretend like it doesn't exist. I've done what is required, and what apparently one person thought wasn't even possible, and provided the links which show this coverage exists. Go Into The Light (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, his Career change may soon lead to him appearing in Expelled: martyr[s] to Wiki. . . dave souza, talk 10:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete the nomination makes good argument. Graywalls (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Not to get all WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on y'all, but it seems worthwhile to point out that there has been at least one other discussion where the keep-ing of an article was due at least partially to species discovery: Articles_for_deletion/Nike_Doggart. Whether discovery of an extant frog species is more notable than identification of ancient bug species, I'll leave it to others to hash out. Makes me think we have reached a sort of interesting point of notability edge-cases in any case. jps (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There certainly are a lot of comments at that AfD saying that the frog alone was not e reason to keep the article. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree that merely discovering something should not be a standard of notability. Seems like this issue is coming up enough that it would be worthwhile to spell it out clearly somewhere. jps (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We gave it a try a while ago, at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)/Archive_10, but without a clear result :/ -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As I have already pointed out, it is already implicit in the academic notability test - just discovering new things is by definition, not going to be a significant contribution to science, that's basically your job. What was significant about that frog discovery, for example? Was it, like this man did, a new species that filled in a major gap on the evolutionary record? Bridging the gap between poisonous frogs and ones that merely look poisonous, for example? One that is brightly coloured but merely makes your tongue tingle when you lick it, for example. Or was it just another frog? If so, the yes, it would appear to be unfair that just discovering a frog makes one notable, but this man isn't, and there is likely a reason for that. Go Into The Light (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment, It should be noted that this debate now contains at least one contradictory claim on the delete side regarding the relevance of German Wikipedia. On the one hand, it has been said that the fact the subject has had a biography on German Wikipedia all this time, is considered irrelevant. In part because it has been speculated they have different inclusion standards to English Wikipedia. And yet on the other, an example of an existing biography on German Wikipedia of a similar scientist, Jens Franzen, who like this man, was based in a German museum not a university, has been highlighted in this debate. Apparently this has only been done because the delete side thinks he has a more impressive record/career. Perhaps he does, but the differences aren't so obvious, and may mean nothing if we do not know what the precise German Wikiepdia notability tests are, or are not absolutely certain we have all the pertinent details of this man's career as they may be reflected in German sources. I do note significant differences in the coverage each man has, certainly as regards popular media, and I am not sure if the ID controversy accounts for that at all. The irony of an example of English Wikipedia failing to have an article on a notable German paleontologist based at a German museum (until today, as a result of this debate), even when there already was a German Wikipedia biography on them, as if it somehow proves English Wikipedia had correctly deleted this subject from English Wikipedia, was too choice not to highlight. Systemic bias absolutely, definitely, is in play here, and that is perhaps all that actually proved. The rest arguably being entirely irrelevant, per OTHERSTUFF (as in, test content against the standards, not other content). Go Into The Light (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm grateful for the effort to turn a longstanding redlink blue with a translated article for Jens Franzen, whose work has been much more prominent in international news media. Rather to my surprise, when I had a search for sources about his personal life rather than his main achievements didn't find much so far – maybe I'm bad looking? Very interesting finds have made the news, not without controversy. He won the first Friedrich von Alberti Award in 1998, and has written at least one book, though it got a rather dismissive review from National Geographic. Will be sad if that article has to be deleted, so hope someone is better than me at finding good sources, but that's no reason to reduce criteria. . . dave souza, talk 18:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not my position that the criteria need to be reduced, I am not arguing that all he has done is merely discover species, even lots of species, he has done more, and that is verified with independent reliable sources. If Franzen has even more international coverage than Bechly, the proof of which, as you have just shown, does rather depend on anyone here having genuinely tried to chase down the leads I have mentioned (such as, as with Franzen, work with BBC "Walkign with" series), then Wikipedia's shame for not having had an article on him until now, is all the greater. Go Into The Light (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I'm glad you finally pinpointed the real cause here: we all hate Germans. Not sure we'd have gotten there without your insight. Now, pipe down a little with the fuming accusations, please? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait...what? I thought we were supposed to hate the Belgians this week. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ooh, look, it's so useful to actually check on stuff before making pronouncements. The German WP's notability criteria for scientists are here. They include this: Erstbeschreiber oder (wissenschaftlicher) Namensgeber einer rezenten oder fossilen Organismengruppe oder Art (Pflanzen, Tiere, Bakterien, Viren usw.) oder eines Minerals oder Gesteins [sind]. I.e., they expressly state that having described a species is sufficient to demonstrate notability. We don't have that criterion, as may have penetrated by now. How about that? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not actually read the entirety of my contributions, before you start slagging me off? It has been me who has said all along that we needed a German speaker here. You are a German speaker, right? You didn't do something daft like try to interpet German Wikipedia's standards using auto-translate? If so, the time to say it would be now, because who knows what subtlety you might have missed. If you are a German speaker and you do read the rest of my comments, you might hopefully realise there is much more work you coule be doing. That is, if you want people to think you are the sort of person who thinks it is super important to actually check stuff before making pronouncements. Go Into The Light (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hm. You might want to reconsider your approach of backpedalling by going on the attack on another front. Well, we'll take the point as read. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, what has to be taken as read is that you didn't know and frankly didn't care that I had asked "Do you have any evidence that German Wikipedia applies a lower bar to scientist notability?" on this very page, some days ago. I only said what I did above, when it appeared we had moved past the point where people apparently didn't care about details like that, into bizarre territory. It is only because of what I said, that a point of clarity has emerged where there was previously an apparent contradiction. You are welcome. Go Into The Light (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Asked and answered. Go Into The Light has been indefititely blocked. Elmidae answered the question: The German Wikipedia's notability criteria for scientists expressly states that having described a species is sufficient to demonstrate notability. The English Wikipedia does not have that criterion (per WP:NPROF), and thus inclusion in the German Wikipedia does not automaticly confer notability on the English Wikipedia. We can stop discussiong this now and move on the the next argument that creationists are using to attempt to bully Wikipedia to change our notability standards so that non-notable creationists are included. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.