Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodor Landscheidt

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 per near-unanimity of responses (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 02:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theodor Landscheidt

Theodor Landscheidt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

The page makes no claims for notability of the subject, and I don't think he is. Moreover, there are no reliable sources for just about everything on the page. I tried to add some cn's for the more obvious lacks [1], but they didn't last. There are no sources for his dob, place, that he was a judge (I happen to know that he was indeed an astrologer and wrote at least one published paper on climatology), for his claims about 2030, for the existence of his institure, for his awards, etc etc. The only real source [2] doesn't even support most of this stuff and is anyway unreliable William M. Connolley (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Needs work, however a quick tour through Google Books provided sources for some items, including his institute. As for awards, I was not able to find anything, however instead of deleting the article, the awards section should probably be removed. The "Cycles Research Institute" what ever that is, states: Landscheidt was an "author and publisher of many papers on cycles"[3] who knows if they actually gave him an award. --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• weak delete There are actually at last 6 published papers, 4 of them at least in good peer reviewed journals. Note of them have been cited more than about 5 or 6 times, but he can't be dismissed out of hand. Still that's nowhere near an adequate record for an academic researcher. I leave open the question that he may perhaps be notable as a modern believer in astrology who did have peer reviewed papers. I've read at least one of them, and it avoided mentioning astrology. DGG (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Delete. Citation index is actually very low. Cited sources do not state notability of this person. I convinced by the arguments below. Let's improve rather than delete. Biophys (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• According to Google Books, he is highly cited, [4]. Many of the source are in German however, so it may appear to someone that Theodor is not as well know as he is. For example here is a German news source discussing him. I ran it through google translator for those non-Germans [5]. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• You have the wrong meaning of "cite". Try google scholar William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Actually I do not, using Google books and showing the majority are inline citations in published books, shows he is highly cited. Just because you have an alternate method, that also searches papers, not just published books, does not discount the former. Hopefully you now know how to make use of a new tool, in a non-conventional manner. Your google scholars page shows his papers have been cited over 50 times collectively however, seems you did a good job of proving he, or at least his work, is notable. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Just to add, apparently the link William notes as unreliable is a research institute in Kazakhstan. They have been cited by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [6][7] --I Write Stuff (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• And finally William admits to having a back and forth with this supposedly unnotable person. [8] (link readded with expressed permission) The link was posted by William, just in case any personal information is located on it. --I Write Stuff (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thats the ***** argument I've heard in a long time. Since when has talking to me been grounds for notability? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC). And... no, that website has *not* been cited by the FAO. Nor has the institute William M. Connolley (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• The person and the institute have been, perhaps you should read the link provided, both of them. Please help me understand where I stated someone talking to you is grounds for notability, a bit of an ego it appears, or perhaps you just did not noticed that I was stating your nomination seems not to be based on the article nor its contents, but on a tiff you had online with the man one day, since the article is sourced and shows notability as consensus seems to state. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• We've back-and-forthed this on t:TL, so I direct watchers to there. In brief: the UN has *not* cited the website. It has used text 9about forest fires) from the websites author. IWS maintains that this makes the website a WP:RS. I disagree. Comment welcome (over there) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• My full argument which you failed to fully articulate, is that the United Nations did not just cite, nor just use some words, but distributed an entire report by the research institute, making it reliable. I have asked William to present some proof that a research institute in Kazakhstan is not reliable, he has refused to, stating the UN thinking a source is reliable, does not trump him thinking they are not reliable. I keep asking for a source they are not reliable, and he either is refusing or does not have one. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep His name is bandied about sufficiently that he probably deserves an article. Really, he's an astrologer? I'm not the least bit surprised. This is a perfect snark in the making. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep He is not an astrologer. (Jarl87 (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)) Theodor Landscheidt expressly denied this in a back and forth with William Connolley back 2000. He has written numerous papers and at least 3 books. Here is one example [9]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarl87 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Of course he was an astrologer (being dead, he isn't anything anymore), but wanted to pretend otherwise in order to sneak stuff into the sci literature. Thats why all his bio is sourced to dodgy astrology books William M. Connolley (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you read his books? Believing in or reading a horoscope does not make someone an Astrologer. Unless you have something more substantial than your word, which Theodore Landscheidt himself denied, then the astrologer reference should be removed. (Jarl87 (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

You could try this.[10] It's such a muddled mish-mash that it's hard to follow, but it looks like someone trying desperately to find an underlying physical basis for their mystical beliefs. Representative quote: "In my book Sun-Earth-Man I have produced evidence that man's activity and even creativity is linked to the Sun's activity. Heliocentric constellations of planets are involved in this connection, as they regulate the Sun's activity via its oscillations about the center of mass of the solar system." Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Or this [11] William M. Connolley (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The "we in astrology" bit is clear enough, innit? Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Does anyone know specific information about his doctorate degree? His article was published in Solar Physics. Here is the abstract. It is one of many examples where he was published in a scientific journal. Here is a image that references his DOB and date of death. (Jarl87 (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

• Keep Article already establishes notability, but should be improved nonetheless. ~ UBeR (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per all of the above. John254 03:29, 26 April 2008 (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.