Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gustav Bernroider


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Gustav Bernroider

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable scientist with a plethora of fringe/pseudoscience views, and no independent sources. Abductive (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Abductive (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - cites at GScholar are rather low, indicating he hasn't had a big influence on his field. GNews finds 1 story about a person by this name's work, but a rough translation seems to indicate it is not an independent source and probably is a different person anyway since there is no mention of bird studies in our article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks like a non-notable fringist to me. No particularly notable work, no real mention in the media... Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above. FRINGE sources don't add up to reliable sources. DreamGuy (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Fringe sources are indeed not valid for WP:Prof notability, but may be so for notability more generally. In this case they probably aren't. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC).


 * Comment. Could we please have a more respectful tone for this particular deletion discussion? Sure, maybe the guy isn't qualified for an article but there's no reason to insult and pass judgment on the man. Many scientists disagree on various aspects of science.--Gloriamarie (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologise if I have been disrespectful; I agree that great care is needed when discussing living persons. Sadly this convention is not always observed, for example here. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC).
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.