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

A message to any journalists who end up reading this page
First of all, thank you for your due diligence in finding this page.

This is the second time this article was nominated for deletion.

The first time there were a large number of accusations made against Wikipedia, mostly in creationist publications:
 * A Respected Scientist Comes Out Against Evolution – and Loses His Wikipedia Page
 * Wikipedia Erases Paleontologist Günter Bechly
 * Wikipedia Erases Scientist from History
 * Change Your Mind on Darwinism, Get Expelled
 * Weighed in Wikipedia’s balances and found wanting

This time, I would like any journalists who write about this to at least be aware of our side of the story.

It is absolutely not true that we deleted Günter Bechly's page because he is a creationist.

I will detail the exact criteria we use when deciding what to keep below, but first, here is a partial list of scientists who are creationists and who have Wikipedia pages.


 * John R. Baumgardner geophysicist
 * Michael J. Behe ''biochemist
 * Thomas G. Barnes physicist
 * Paul K. Chien biologist
 * Robert V. Gentry nuclear physicist
 * Duane T Gish biochemist
 * Guillermo Gonzalez astronomer
 * John G. Hartnett cosmologist
 * Alan T. J. Hayward physicist
 * David R. "Russell" Humphreys physicist
 * Dean H. Kenyon ''biologist
 * Frank L. Marsh plant ecologist
 * Stephen C. Meyer geophysicist
 * Scott A. Minnich microbiologist
 * Hugh N. Ross astrophysicist
 * Marcus R. Ross vertebrate paleontologist
 * John C. Sanford plant geneticist
 * Henry F. Schaefer III computational and theoretical chemist
 * Gerald L. Schroeder nuclear physicist
 * Andrew A. Snelling geologist
 * Kurt P. Wise paleontologist

Of the scientists listed above, most have never been nominated for deletion, and three have been nominated (remember, anyone can nominate any article for deletion) with the result being to keep the article:


 * Articles for deletion/John Baumgardner (nominated in 2007)
 * Articles for deletion/Robert V. Gentry (nominated in 2006)
 * Articles for deletion/Robert V. Gentry (2nd nomination) (nominated in 2009)
 * Articles for deletion/Guillermo Gonzalez (CSC) (nominated in 2006)

I think any reasonable person would look at the above and conclude that if we are trying to delete articles about creationists we are really bad at it.

So now let's talk about article deletion on Wikipedia.

Yes, we do delete articles. (Remember, literally anyone can create an article.)

We don't do it to be mean, and we don't do it because we don't like the person or the topic. We do it to improve the encyclopedia.

You really would not like it if we had an article for every garage band, everyone with a YouTube channel, and every actor in every commercial ever aired.

For example: Articles for deletion/Notice posted on the corridor of the ground floor at Hietalahdenkatu 7A, Helsinki, Finland. We get a lot of this sort of thing.

We have given a lot of thought to the question of what to retain and what to delete. I invite the reader to look at the following policies and decide for themselves whether Günter Bechly meets our standards.
 * Notability
 * Notability (academics)
 * Notability (academics)

Bottom line: we really are trying to do the right thing here, despite an ongoing campaign by certain creationists to bully us into relaxing our standards when dealing with articles about creationists. If you write about this, please present both sides. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Section move
Please note that "A message to any journalists who end up reading this page" has been moved to a place where, in my opinion, journalists who end up reading this page are unlikely to see it. I do not consider the following to be an acceptable substitute. Is there a consensus for or against this move? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It was largely outside the scope of this AfD, but I personally would have just collapsed it if I was ambitious at the time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I support the move. I've never seen an AfD include long sections meant for outside audiences. While the largely off-topic discussions by non-editors can be best collapsed, I imagine that Guy wanted to retain a visible notice anticipating another round of journalisming. I think the header at top is sufficient. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I doubt it's adequate. I don't have a lot of confidence that the same journalists who reported on the debate without evidence of trying to understand our deletion policies and procedures the last time around will pay any attention to a notice at the top of this page saying that there is "some tangential discussion" elsewhere. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't even remotely object if anyone would like to tweak the box to make it super visible and obvious to anyone happening upon the page. Make it purple and yellow! Put a big stop sign and large font! Go crazy! Their tags shall blink until the end of days! –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 22:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How about waiting to the close of the AfD and then moving it back?
 * How about waiting to the close of the AfD and then moving it back and collapsing it?
 * Would either of those be acceptable? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw the post and responded directly to it I think it should stay for context, but the poll should be removed. I don't think a poll of who agrees with someone is appropriate for an AfD. Valoem talk contrib 03:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point. If the consensus is to move it back the poll should definitely stay on the talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless someone objects, I will move it back (just the notice, not the poll or comments) when this closes. It probably won't help, but at least I can say I tried. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editors who endorse the above message:
 * Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to write this. There are obscure video games and musicians I really like and would love to write articles about, but I would not get a special pass to do it, they risk getting deleted if I do.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 17:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been involved in a few "media outrages" and once even mentioned in one, they are usually written by partisan hacks with an axe to grind or cause to fight. This will be no different.Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And even if the article is deleted again, things can change:. Also, he's currently on 5 other WP:s. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Leijurv (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Krelnik (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A masterful summary. It should also be noted that the deleted article was basically an autobiography, with most of the content being added by Bechly himself (and was created by an editor with no other edits at all, anywhere on Wikipedia or any other WMF project, and likely to also be the subject or a close associate). Guy (help!) 13:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Co-signed. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, but let's not get in the habit of taking up AfD space like this. Last time around there was maybe one legitimate news story that might be helped by information like this (Haaretz). But nobody who sees a pervasive darwinist anti-creationist conspiracy on Wikipedia is going to be swayed by members of that conspiracy providing "facts". After all, Wikipedia's rules couldn't have evolved via years of community deliberation -- they must've been implemented in a day by a higher authority. FWIW it's possible that there could be a little box with the AfD template that links to "information for journalists or others unfamiliar with this process" though. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * —David Eppstein (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't know to what extent actual journalists took up these accusations: of the four linked articles, one is in the DI's Center for Science and Culture currently publishing as Evolution News, an article by DI Fellow David Klinghoffer, one from the fringe lobbyist American Council on Science and Health, one by creationist Jerry Bergman (we don't seem to have an article on him), only the last by the evangelical World (magazine) looks like journalism. So, typical DI lobbying. . . dave souza, talk 21:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

'Wikipedia Editors who condemn the above message:


 * Can we have some common decency please? Since the potential merits of including a scientist who has made apparently significant contributions in his field is not remotely comparable to including any old garage band, Youtuber or commercial actor, and since it is perfectly possible to make the argument with reference to Wikipedia'a existing standards that this person was notable as a scientist without being here as part of a creationist campaign to get Wikipedia to relax its standards, then the inference of this message that somehow us journalists are frankly idiots who are incapable of understanding any of your ways and means, is frankly offensive. Full details are in my keep vote, which has unsurprisingly not attracted too many replies, except from one person who was presumably trying to annoy me by picking up on a typo, and another who has not done me the courtesy of appreciating that my argument is more than simply "keep, exists on German Wikipedia". Oh, and of course, Chris Troutman has been nice enough to allege that I too have a conflict of interest here. I do not. Other than me making the argument that this person is notable as a scientist, I am at a loss to explain why he thinks I do. Go Into The Light (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It isn't just Chris Troutman. See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Are any contemporary paleoentomologists notable?
Bechly's "Morphologische Untersuchungen am Flugelgeader der rezenten Libellen und deren Stammgruppenvertreter (Insecta ; Pterygota ; Odonata) unter besonderer Berucksichtigung der phylogenetischen Systematik und des Grundplanes der Odonata" has been cited over 400 times per google scholar, which seems like a significant number of citations for a publication where he is sole author. The only other contemporary paleoentomologist to have a wikipedia article to my recollection is Alexandr Rasnitsyn, who is 83 years old. His citation counts are significantly higher than Bechly's but not by an order of magnitude. Other citation counts for paleoentomologists who I would consider notable like EA Jarzembowski are higher than Bechly's but not significantly so. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "The only other contemporary paleoentomologist to have a wikipedia article to my recollection is Alexandr Rasnitsyn", actually there are several contemporary paleoentomologists with articles besides Rasnitsyn: Michael S. Engel, David Grimaldi, George Poinar Jr., Sam W. Heads, Barry Bolton (who does fossil ant work occasionally) Edward Osborne Wilson and Corrie Moreau. Out of those, all can make fair arguments for having the notable outside coverage of the person, except maybe Heads.-- Kev  min  § 18:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I forgot about Engel, Grimaldi and Poinar, whoops, these are great examples of notable paleoentomologists, but that still leaves the count of "notable paleoentomologists" at four. Poinar in particular is noted for a lot of work outside Paleoentomology, particularly on nematodes, which is why I didn't think to include him initially. E.O Wilson is primarily notable for his work on living ants and work on biogeography, so I don't think that counts. Corrie Moreau and Barry Bolton are also notable for her work on living ants and not on fossil ones. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The main point stands though, that there is outside coverage of them as people, rather then just a list of publications they have written. Notability more often then not in non-sexy paleontology fields (eg plants bugs and shells) comes after death.-- Kev  min  § 19:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Afiak WP:PROF only applies to academics from the Mid-20th century onwards when there was a massive expansion in higher education and the corresponding number of academics. It makes little sense to compare the notability of someone like Engel or Grimaldi with Theodore Dru Alison Cockerell for instance, who while being notable is cited significantly less than those two. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I will point to parts one and three of the WP:Prof nutshell. "1-Subjects of biographical articles on Wikipedia are required to be notable; that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice, as evidenced by being the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. 3-Having published work does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study." Bechly does not satisfy either 1 or 3. ans 2 notes that sheer publication count is not an accepted criteria.-- Kev  min  § 20:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I never suggested that sheer publication counts are what makes academics notable, that's obviously false, it's citation metrics that we are discussing. In the general notes it states: "claims of impact must be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, or library holdings, and so on." I'd argue Theodore having an obit in Science signifies notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not massively fussed on the notability of Bechly, but I think that arachnologists Jason Dunlop and especially Paul Selden deserve articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would certainly argue for a keep if an article on either of those two were put up for deletion. They both have citation records that are clearly a step above Bechly (multiple highly-cited publications instead of only one) and Selden is also a distinguished professor (passing criterion C5). There are many other notable academics in many other disciplines for whom we do not have articles, and many academics who are less notable than Bechly for whom we do have articles (and for whom I would argue for deletion if they came to AfD). This is why we have WP:WAX. We need to base our decisions on the cases that come to us and not on the other stuff that has not yet reached a discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)