Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otto Rössler

:{{la|Otto Rössler}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Otto_R%C3%B6ssler Stats])

:({{Find sources|Otto Rössler}})

Not notable, citations needed, Scholarpedia bio is self-authored Cgwaldman (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. How is "he wrote his profile on some other site" a valid deletion rationale?? Anyway he passes WP:PROF#C1 with 1600+ citations in Google scholar for his best paper (before he went cranky) and also he passes WP:GNG for the in-depth profiles of him in Focus and Spiegel. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• How is "he wrote his profile on some other site" a valid deletion rationale?
• :Point is that there are few references for his notability, and all of the references I could find were self-authored. Cgwaldman (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• :*So you didn't look at the stories in Science 2.0, Focus, and Spiegel already linked as references in the article? That seems like the sort of basic due diligence that should be required before starting an AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment – He seems notable enough. I understand that he became newsworthy for his concern that the LHC would create mini-black holes that could destroy the Earth. Does that make him a crank? I don't know. His biographies claim that he won the "René Descartes Award" in 2003, but I haven't been able to find a suitable independent confirmation. (The 2003 Descartes Prize was won by others.) Regards, RJH (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Has made major contributions to his field, thus meets WP:ACADEMIC #1. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep as a glorious eccentric (probably also passes WP:Prof#C1). Xxanthippe (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC).
• Keep, notable, article has enough citations. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). He is probably WP-notable in other ways than his academic capacity as well.--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete this is an individual who has been involved in a disputed related to astroturfing in science. Using raw numbers as a basis of notability isn't sufficient. When I look beyond the raw numbers I don't see any indepth coverage by independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Clearly the most vocal and notable critics of the LHC. Whether it by legal challenge or dissemination of comments, papers and such against the LHC operation. Also the subject is notable for the Rössler attractor which is still used today. On either end of the scale, he is notable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2012 (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.