Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolfgang Baer

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. ^Complex/_Rational 15:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Baer

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article about non-notable physicist created by an WP:SPA. Mostly expounds his crackpot theories and lists his fringe publications. Reference 5 looked at first sight to give him a sliver of notability, but it turns out its a newspaper column written by himself. Tercer (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tercer (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:FRINGE researchers need in-depth mainstream sourcing on their fringe work to satisfy our requirement for a WP:NPOV. We have none in this case, and no evidence of notability for non-fringe work (which in any case would require refocusing the article on that work). —David Eppstein (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The existing text is unsuitable in just about every way, and there's no reason why this article should exist in the first place. XOR'easter (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oof. I was skeptical about "unsuitable in just about every way", but no, that's about the right of it. -- asilvering (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His "Conscious Action Theory" book can be found using Gscholar above, it appears to be published be Routledge, a reliable publisher. That said, there is nothing in Jstor or the NYT about him, Gscholar doesn't pull up much. Oaktree b (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The book was reviewed here [1] and here [2], which seem to be a serious review of the work and the concepts it proposes and some discussion of the person behind them. This is not in my field of expertise, but it doesn't read like hokum to my untrained eyes. Oaktree b (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those links counts for anything. The first is in a fringe and unreliable journal and the second is not a review but rather a researchgate page on the book itself. In any case, even with better reviews, one book would be unlikely to be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research is hokum, pure and simple. And even if it weren't, one review of one book isn't going to pass WP:NAUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2023 (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.