Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Dröscher

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 keep. The only delete was an attack on the subject's eligability as a physicist, and this is not the purpose of AfD. Daniel.Bryant 06:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walter Dröscher

WP:PROD was contested. Insufficent notability for a physicist. Next to no publications. --Pjacobi 16:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: this may be considered in context of recent AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Heim_theory. Pavel Vozenilek 20:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep based primarily on results from Google Scholar. Eluchil404 05:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; the presence of publications for a professor is not notable, but he appears to satisfy WP:BIO. Vectro 23:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, — CharlotteWebb 07:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong Delete This article is from what I understand about a crank pseudo scientist and crackpot, not a physicist, who does not deserve a Wikipedia article. I read the Heim theory discussion and from what I understand Heim Theory is wrong. Wikipedia does not need articles on every wanna be scientist pseudo intellectual bent on finding bocus reasons to explain the universe. Stick to something solid like Metal. --The Crying Orc 18:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep appears to satisfy WP:BIO --Limetom 20:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. Crackpots can be notable too, and belong in the pseudoscience collection of articles. If not kept, the content of this article should at least be merged into List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. -Amatulic 23:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, the man won an award from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics [1] for his peer reviewed research paper and his work is being studied by ESA, so he's no crackpot, not can you honestly call it "pseudoscience"... if we can have articles about import models and such, this is a strong keep. His work was featured in prominent magazines like New Scientist [2]. GeneralPatton 14:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, there is a tendency to mix notability and judgement on scientific value. This is not peer review. I think he is notable. Hektor 13:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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.