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. (non-admin closure) Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Bleyl[edit]

[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)

Not clear that the subject meets the criteria at WP:SIGCOV or WP:NACADEMIC. 4meter4 (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep this is pre-internet but I find this obituary and this bio which is enough to write an article. Also an obituary in a scholarly journal indicates notability but the argument is somewhat weak. --hroest 15:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... For me, this doesn't completely settle the question of notability, but creates a more complex set of questions. According to both sources he was not a professional entomologist but an amateur hobbyist. That complicates things. I would like some opinions from other editors on how to handle someone who doesn't quite fit our traditional model for researchers. Thank you for finding these sources Hannes Röst. I am now on the fence with this one.4meter4 (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the argument is not crystal clear but in general if a scientific journal (or a major newspaper) publishes an obituary that removes the general issues of RS and it probably also means the person was notable based on the soft criteria. Here we have 2 obituaries. When in doubt I opt for keeping; here the subject is dead, we can write a reasonable article and there is little chance of maintenance work as facts probably wont change. --hroest

Agreed, I am leaning more towards keep myself at this point based on recent comments by others.4meter4 (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being an amateur and not a professional would make him more notable, not less, but I can't see much on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep per WP:GNG and the two in-depth sources found by Hannes Röst. He doesn't appear to pass WP:PROF but (for most of its criteria) amateur status is irrelevant to that: it's about significance of scholarly contributions, not about job titles. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per weak keepers. Agree amateur status is irrelevant. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2021 (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.