![]() | There is related discussion on the associated talk page, including a note to journalists and a side discussion on notability in general. |
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
On altering this discussion after closing
|
---|
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. |
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
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)
According to https://vernonpress.com/contact, "Vernon Press is an independent publisher of bilingual scholarly books in the humanities and social sciences."
Sources with quotes
|
---|
|
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) 04:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)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.
ID's [intelligent design's] powerful arguments have attracted many former Darwinistsis ipso facto not reliable.... XOR'easter ( talk) 16:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
ID's [intelligent design's] powerful arguments have attracted many former Darwinistsis 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 Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
My full original reasoning, which was collapsed for length (against my wishes), but still stands in full as my compete argument, showing as it hopefully does, that I understand all the issues in play.
Go Into The Light (
talk) 18:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
|
---|
—
Go Into The Light (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
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.
|
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'easter ( talk) 19:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
long reply self-collapsed only as a courtesy, I advise everyone not to view that as a valid reason to ignore it
Go Into The Light (
talk) 00:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
|
---|
|
I note that DGG was WP:CANVASSed here by Valoem with a deceptive statement that he "recently" re-created the article based on his researches.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
I think I am well-known to be interested in the topic, and notifying one or two people who have expressed prior interest are is not canvassing. I think the people who need to explain their motivation are not those who would include this article, but those who would delete it. An ordinary article on a taxonomist of his standing would not have been listed for deletion except for the non-evolutionist aspect., what you are doing here is highly inappropriate. Valoem talk contrib 16:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.[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 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'easter ( talk) 03:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
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 [4]. 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'easter ( talk) 06:18, 31 July 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)
Having published work does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are.XOR'easter ( talk) 16:29, 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:
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.
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." [6] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
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)