Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Stingl

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Stingl[edit]

This article is about a non-notable academic. Although the article claims two books and 30 journal publications, the books have not been published and none of the journal articles appear in refereed journals. The person in question also does not appear to have ever held an academic position. In fact, there is currently no online evidence for his existence other than his personal web pages. The article is also full of material about his theories that is difficult to make sense of. Looie496 (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC) For convenience, I am also listing here Bio-civics, an article about Stingl's theory in which most of the text is taken from the Alexander Stingl article, and for which no published sources exist. I hope that listing both of these together doesn't violate any procedures. Looie496 (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:NOTABLE as far as I can determine. Only citations are personal websites.Wik-e-wik (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the one on Stingl. Based on his CV, [1] no actual major publications. As for the theory, that really needs to be considered separately. DGG (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It tells: "His scholarly work includes some 30 scholarly articles, two books, and several conference papers." Fine, but how about his citation index?Biophys (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Stingl is a recent Ph.D. without any evidence presented of the impact needed to pass WP:PROF #1. The article goes on at length about his academic work, normally a good thing compared to manyy of our academic biographies which only recite the bare facts about someone's career, but the length together with the lack of third-party references makes me think most of this discussion is likely original research. As for the bio-civics article, there's too little on that phrase in Google scholar (only two uncited papers by Hindmarsh) to convince me that it rises above WP:NEO. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Subject passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. Articles (both) created too early.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:56, 28 June 2009 (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.