Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Gustaf Hjalmar Armfeldt

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. The copyright status of these stubs is dubious. Rücker and Artel don't actually assert any notability, making them eligible for CSD A7 also. Sandstein 12:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Gustaf Hjalmar Armfeldt[edit]

Housekeeping nomination of Faberge "workmasters" per the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johan Victor Aarne. All of these articles were created by the same user, Bramo (talk · contribs), who apparently created a bunch of copyvio articles. I don't have any proof that these articles are copyvios so I didn't CSD them, but you can read the previous AfD for more information regarding this. Besides being potential copyvios, delete per WP:N as they are not notable. Tavix (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Four articles have been speedily deleted because of incontrovertible evidence of copyvios. The deletion of the remaining articles remains under discussion.

I found this in a search for Rappaport, but that may well been taken from the WP article. In that previous discussion, MuzeMike seemed very confident on the copyvio issue--perhaps MuzeMike can weigh in here and explain how he was "assured." I did find a lot of mentions of Julius Rappoport in a Google Book search, though they all seem to be very brief. Mind you, I'm not arguing against you, Tavix, I'm just wondering how deeply we should look into each individual article; in other words, I would like to know how strongly you feel (if you don't have direct evidence) that these are copyvios. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, thanks for singling me out, especially after both DGG and MacGyverMagic both agreed that it was a copyvio ;). (Note that I inadvertently left out the word "not" in my statement in that AFD; I meant to say that the "original content is not GFDL-compatible). If you're questioning my judgment that the article was a copyvio, I remember that the content I saw in the article was very similar to the content in that website to the point that it I thought (as well as a couple of others) that is was a copyvio, hence my rationale for G12. MuZemike (talk) 08:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whoa, good faith, my friend! I did not doubt your statement at all and only picked up on yours because...well, actually, I don't recall. :) I have faith in your judgment (and MGM's, below), and only wondered what it was based on so I could have a better-informed opinion on the rest of the articles. Your and DGG's commments (below) confirm my suspicions. I do have the same sort of reservations that Deor marks also, and was unwilling to speak out on a mass nomination; still, DGG's suggested solution appeals to me. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's OK. I just felt second-guessed there for a moment. I know I'm prone to making mistakes, as well. No worries. MuZemike (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Comment. Despite the outcome of the AfD cited by the nominator, and the apparent vagaries of the articles' creator, I am uncomfortable with recommending the deletion of articles that seem, at least in basic identifications, to be supported by apparently reliable sources. I'm welcome to persuasion in either direction, but I see no reason to advocate a blanket delete at this time. Deor (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with the CSD of the cited article because of the creation date of the article in relation to the supposed source. Often it's not clear which came first. In this case it was crystal clear. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete several (no opinion on the others). The same blog that demonstrated the prior publication in other sources for Johan Victor Aarne has entries for a number of these individuals:

Karl Gustaf Hjalmar Armfeldt created November 2007. http://the-antique-blog.blogspot.com/2007/06/who-was-karl-gustav-hjalmar-armfeldt.html created June 2007. Text largely identical.
Henrik Wigström created March 2006. http://the-antique-blog.blogspot.com/2007/06/who-was-henrik-wigstrm-wigstrom.html created June 2007. Text largely identical.
Julius Rappoport created May 2008. http://the-antique-blog.blogspot.com/2007/06/who-was-julius-rappoport.html created June 2007. Text largely identical.
Avenir Ivanovitch Sumin created May 2008. http://the-antique-blog.blogspot.com/2007/06/who-was-avenir-ivanovitch-sumin.html created June 2007. Text largely identical.

The the odd one out is Henrik Wigström. To me this all strongly indicates that there is another source from wich both the WP articles and the blog were copied. Bongo matic 09:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case it's not obvious, delete Henrik Wigström. The circumstantial evidence that this (despite being created prior to the blog entries) is copied from (as-yet unidentified) common sources is overwhelming.

It is too bad that the person who copied these items into the blog and into Wikipedia doesn't identify the source. While each individual is probably not notable, the Fabergé workmaster article could be expanded including some of these colorful details. Bongo matic 07:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all unless specific copyright violations are indicated for specific articles. The cited AFD resulted in a speedy delete, not because there was consensus that the individual was NN but because the article was a copyright violation. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As previously stated, there is specific evidence of blatant copyright violation for three of the articles:

and an overwhelmingly strong inference for a fourth, Julius Rappoport.

Bongo matic 14:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though for technical reasons. I think it's very likely that the same person entered it here who wrote the web page--I can't really imagine someone else just happening to come across them at the time. At present, the earlier publication gives it copyright, status. He could assert that he owns the copyright and give them to us also under GFDL, & it would be legit--if we could reach him. He has however been notified of the deletions. I a little bothered by these, because he was editing last December 15--see his user contributions--I think he will come back, and then the response must be to assert copyright to OTRS or by placing a GFDL notice on the blog, and restore the articles. DGG (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just speedy deleted the three which were unquestionably copyvios however I am leaving this AfD open to decide the fate of the less cut and dried cases. For what it is worth my !vote is to delete as although it has not (yet) been proven the probability that the rest are copyvios is very high. Nancy ^talk 19:11, 8 January 2009 (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.