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. KTC (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Unzicker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BIO/WP:PROF. The claim that his book makes him famous is somewhat dubious. The book was panned by a single reviewer and that seems to be the sum total of its notoriety. Not really good enough for a standalone article. jps (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it stands - and the de: and sv: versions of the article don't have any more to them either - David Gerard (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 20:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A fringe physicist with one book, and its translation to English. I don't think Woit's revew is good enough for WP:AUTHOR, although it does at least ameliorate the usual problem with fringe subjects, that there are no mainstream sources to balance their claims. And if Woit (no friend of string theory) thinks his work is crankery, it's enough to convince me. There are also more high-profile reviews of his book in Kirkus [1] and the Guardian [2] but the Kirkus one is too shallow to be useful for anything and the Guardian one basically just says "it's trash, don't bother". I don't see how these could be used as the basis for a biography.—David Eppstein (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete People associated with fringe theories need substantial coverage. That is not achieved here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough substantial information found here. WikiWatcher987 (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2015 (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.