Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ott Christoph Hilgenberg

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. postdlf (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ott Christoph Hilgenberg[edit]

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

I don't think that this particular maverick scientist is notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. In particular, I think he is being unduly promoted from what would be absolute obscurity by fringe proponents of Expanding Earth ideas. Indeed, I can find no mention of him independent of these pseudoscience promotions and those are certainly not the reliable sources Wikipedia requires to write a biography. I contend that there are no reliable sources about this person that are independent of the pseudoscience rabbit hole. jps (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SL 7968 15:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've translated this article in 2007 from the original German article de:Ott Christoph Hilgenberg. At that time, I thought that this paper might be a reputable source on this topic. However, the book in which this paper was published was only written by proponants of the theory. As those "expanding earth" ideas are far beyond mainstream, I started to ignore this article and the related topic a long time ago. So deletion might be the correct solution, unless someone can find independent and reputable secondary sources. --D.H (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ACADEMIC. For context, the H-index is about 6 when using the rather generous Google scholar. I see no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the promulgators of pseudoscience, thus fails WP:GNG, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The scientific worth of one's theories doesn't necessarily decide notability, but the fact that the subject is only referred to in non-reliable publications/books makes having an article inappropriate. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think WP:FRINGE is more relevant than WP:ACADEMIC here. In order to provide neutral coverage of the subject, we need reliably published sources that treat his work from a mainstream point of view, rather than only using fringe sources. That's not the case here and no other sources appear to be available. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep I would not delete an article on a German scientist that is unchallenged at the German WP. They know their field better than we can expect to, and their notability standards are higher than ours. I would be reluctant to extend this to any other WP in an absolute way, tho its always a reason for caution. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2013 (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.