Deletion of Günter Bechly (2nd nomination)

Comment: per . There are people who are notable for their fringe positions. This person is not. As , he seems to fail as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGEBLP||WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: basicly using  about 50% of accademics pages should be deleted if this one is deleted. So I would like to see all those others deleted first before this one
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: based purely on  considerations (the popular coverage cited is not substantially about ''him'', and the Haaretz thing should be discounted for obvious reasons - we don't generate our own notability). No substantial awards/honors, as a non-university-affiliated scientist he misses out on the named chair/high institutional position options, the https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=byMvnWsAAAAJ citation record is good but not great (I'm getting on to match these numbers, and I'm a lazy postdoc), having described species is '''not''' and has never been an automatic shoo-in (contrary to what DGG surprisingly claims), and the impact on the discipline as presented in the article and sources is not extraordinary. Don't care about the creationist angle in particular; if it generates sufficient friction that the general press starts writing about it at length, then it feeds into GNG, but absent that it doesn't make him more or less notable as an academic or a General Person
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF)

Comment: After checking the sources where there are only mentions (Vrsansky is also usually mentioned and there's no article about him but from a few searches may be notable), I see only one that really is about Bechly (but even more about Wikipedia), the one relating to the previous deletion.  One could argue that the event increased notability although the article's author writes a lot about Wikipedia because of the encyclopedia's own notability.  The nominator hits the spot with 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: at present. Seems to be some high citations for rof#C1 but I would be more certain if there were a GS profile for this person. His alleged fringe views make him more interesting
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: Not to get all  on y'all, but it seems worthwhile to point out that there has been at least one other discussion where the keep-ing of an article was due at least partially to species discovery: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nike_Doggart. Whether discovery of an extant frog species is more notable than identification of ancient bug species, I'll leave it to others to hash out. Makes me think we have reached a sort of interesting point of notability edge-cases in any case
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: per the consensus of the last go-around, which the deletion review affirmed as a good close.  The "coverage" of the deletion of his Wikipedia article in ''reliable sources'' &mdash; outside the creationist bubble &mdash; was minimal. Brief blurbs about a paper he co-authored don't amount to |significant coverage. In short, nothing has changed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: Editor hat off for a moment and speaking as an entomologist, there is nothing in the article to establish notability over any average entomologist (or paleontologist) in terms of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#General_notes "average professor test". Editor hat focus back on, and the last AfD was clear on delete. The small addition recently on "controversy" over having his article deleted isn't really anything of significance to change notability. Even if it was more significant, it would be a case of  since he isn't particularly notable as a researcher
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E)