Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly (2nd nomination)
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
— User:Elmidae, 22:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NPROF (Wikipedia:Notability)