Deletion of Günter Bechly

Comment: While some of his work is impressive to me, does not appear to meet  or .  The current article also has apparent  issues.  If kept, it should be pruned (as ).  I tried to find some mentions in large English papers and found one mention in The Washington Post as the author of an image used in a paleontology related news article (which was not about him and is not significant coverage).  The current sources used in the article are far from ideal (fail to demonstrate significant coverage in sources independent of the subject and notability).  It is possible that the person is better known locally/nationally than internationally
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF||WP:NBIO||WP:COI||WP:NOTCV)

Comment: GS h-index of 17 marginal for rof#C1 Nothing else
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: I was initially a little confused as to why this article had been flagged for deletion, given Bechly's academic standing in Germany and his prominence - or notoriety - as a convert to ID. However, it seems from the above thread that it is exactly Bechly's conversion to ID that might be the issue here, which is unfortunate. One or two users apparently have an axe to grind on that point, with a rather combative tone, and comments like "Bechly's turn to fringe creationist views". This is related to the whole issue of  - a perennial challenge for Wikipedia, given that those with the strongest feelings on either side of a debate tend to invest the most effort in pushing their view. I understand the concerns of these users regarding ID, but deleting a prominent paleontologist's biographical entry isn't an appropriate way to resolve them. Not sure if there's an admin who can have a look and close this thread off? - Sam Tanner. —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP: NPOV)

Comment: Fails   and low h-index Fails  low for  rof#C1
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:PROF||WP:P)

Comment: He has one well-cited paper ("Fossil odonates in Tertiary amber"), one reasonably well-cited co-edited volume ("The Crato fossil beds of Brazil: Window into an ancient world"), and lower citations for his other works, not enough to convince me of a pass of |our standards for academic notability. His turn to |fringe creationist views does not seem to be notable at all, and cannot be covered without mainstream sources giving it an adequately |neutral point of view. So the only possible source of notability would be as an exhibit curator, but that would require in-depth coverage of his role in the exhibits or as a museum leader (not just inherited notability from special exhibits he organized) and I don't see that in the article. On top of all that, the |autobiography issues are a big problem. And none of the sources we have are |reliable; the only one with any plausible appearance of reliability and independence from the subject, the interview by Probst, is essentially self-published
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:FRINGE||WP:NPOV||WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY||WP:RS)