Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Lehrer (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Lehrer

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted several times (most recently after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Z. Lehrer), and recreated under this new title with similar content. There is still nothing to establish notability in general, as in Wikipedia:Notability (academics); as discussed (especially by Shyamal) at previous nominations, it is unlikely that the subject's work in taxonomy would be enough for him to be sufficiently notable for a biographical article. The only reliable source still is a review of his work which says it should be treated with great caution (Rognes 2005). The article again appears to largely be written by single-purpose accounts of either presumably of the subject or close to the subject; there is nothing to verify most of the biography. Lehrer has been "at war with others" in his field promoting his ideas, as put by Shyamal at the latest deletion nomination, and has taken this to trolling on Wikipedia, enough to be blocked on the Romanian Wikipedia. —innotata 00:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- according to the usual mode of gauging nobility per WP:PROF, this guy fails. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt for the same reason I gave in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Z. Lehrer: the only third-party source with any nontrivial information about the subject, the Rognes review, is highly negative, and WP:BLP applies. Speedy deletion G4 could be considered, but the article differs enough from the previously deleted version that I'm uncomfortable tagging it for that. And given the history of repeated recreation of this article in defiance of past AfD results, it should be protected against further recreation, as Andy Z. Lehrer already has been. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tagged this article for speedy deletion, but the request was turned down by an administrator. I'm pretty sure it's close to the final version of Andy Z. Lehrer, and nothing really substantial has changed, but this probably should be resolved for good through articles for deletion. —innotata 15:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Subject does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. He is a "researcher", not a faculty member, at Tel Aviv University (see the TAU list of faculty members here which does not include him). His citations at Google Scholar are minimal. The only claim to fame offered in the article is a taxonomy dispute; this does not make him a leader in the field. Since there is a history of multiple deletions and recreations under various names, it appears that interested parties are not willing to abide by Wikipedia consensus, and the subject should be blocked from further recreation. --MelanieN (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.