Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bindernagel


 * 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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 03:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

John Bindernagel

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

Unknown outside of Bigfoot enthusiasts. Probably a vanity stub. Fails WP:BIO. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Here's an article. This looks potentially useful. So does this. And do you seriously suspect that User:Mad Max is Bindernagel himself? Zagalejo^^^ 06:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  —Artw (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy While the article doesn't yet include enough information to warrant a full article (and the sources shown above don't either) I don't think a separate article is warranted yet, but the idea Mad Max is Bindernagel himself is ludicrous. He's been a longstanding Wikipedian for at least 3 year who edited many different subjects. Editors like that should be given the chance to fix their earlier contributions. - Mgm|(talk) 11:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - published author of some notoriety. Keep stub so it can be expanded over time. Esasus (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per everyone but nominator. Edward321 (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - as the article stands the notability of the subject is highly questionable. However, if sources which establish notability are forthcoming, then the article should be kept.  ClovisPt (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - Not sure how this individual is any more notable than any other scientist, especially those carrying out serious research. Cannot find any papers published in serious scientific journals. Does this not fail WP:PROF? Parslad (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why must he pass WP:PROF? He's not known primarily for his academic writings, but as a figure in the Bigfoot hunting community, for which he has been discussed in the popular press. Zagalejo^^^ 20:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well article claims he is a wildlife biologist, for which there is no evidence. Parslad (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * He is described as a wildlife biologist in newspaper articles, at least. See . Zagalejo^^^ 21:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but a professional biologist would have (many) papers published in reputable journals. Search finds none at all, doesn't even claim any in subject's own website. Certainly not notable as a biologist. Parslad (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of these might be him. But to get back to my previous argument, I don't think his work as a professional biologist (whatever it may be) is his main source of notability anyway. He's more notable as one of the better-known Bigfoot hunters, which makes him more of a pop culture figure than anything else.
 * FYI, I've tried to add a few refs. And there's more material listed at Google News that I can't access at the moment. Zagalejo^^^ 22:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable enough for own article, could be added in article about BigFoot perhaps. --Peephole (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge into Bigfoot. Not wide enough notability for his own article, but enough for mention in the main article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep sources establish WP:N. Artw (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Artw Ryan shell (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep well sourced, encyclopedic. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There are significant sources (see link above). Clearly over the WP:N bar and no one has seriously argued otherwise.  Hobit (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article is well sourced and clearly passes both WP:N and WP:V criteria... on top of this, the nomination appears to be borderline WP:IDONTKNOWIT... I am sure there are a number of scientists/experts/academics that are not well known by the general public, but that is no reason to arbitrarily delete them... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The subject 'hunts' a non existent animal. He isn't a scientist, or an expert or an academic! Parslad (talk) 07:07, 24 February 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.