Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim Weickert

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The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). The nominator withdrew their nomination, and no !votes to delete were posted (other than the nomination). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim Weickert[edit]

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

The article contains large sections of text identical to the person's bio at http://www.mia.uni-saarland.de/weickert/index.shtml . It was tagged by the Madman bot, and the article creator then removed the tag rather than correcting the copyvio by re-writing the information. It was PROD'd as a biography of a living person which lacked references, but the prod was removed(the only ref was the subject's bio page). The subject of the article is a professor who won a major research prize, and has published many scholarly works, so he is likely notable by WP:PROF, but I did not find biographical details about him at Google Books. There ought to be some bio info somewhere, perhaps related to the Leibniz Prize he won. There are some newspaper articles in German: [1] which someone skilled in the language should check out and perhaps add to the article. If the copyvios are removed, there is not much left in the stub. This is one of a series of articles created by the same editor by copying from the bio pages of the subjects, and then removing or ignoring tags/prods for lack of refs or for copyvios. Edison (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I didn't see much evidence of copyvio, but I rewrote it with better sources just to be safe. His citation record in Google scholar (with citation counts 1484, 773, 620, 454, 404, ... is a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1, far above the minimal threshold usually seen here, and the Leibniz prize also passes #2 as a highly prestigious national-level award. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You "didn't see much evidence of copyvio?" Then you refused to look. See the talk page of the article. Edison (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I saw a bare-bones listing of degrees and job postings, worded somewhat differently than the similar and somewhat less bare-bones listing on his home page. I agree after reading the talk page that it was too closely paraphrased, but with this little material original prose is difficult to attain. In any case, I seem to recall that Wikipedia's policies for copyvio (e.g. WP:CSD#G12) are to delete it *only if* the article has no salvageable content that could be fixed by rewriting, not true in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eppstein pipped me by 10 seconds. GS h-index of 50+ is a clear pass of WP:Prof#1 at least. Copy-vio may be an issue. Nominator is advised to read WP:Before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I am very aware of WP:BEFORE, and did exhaustive research before proceeding with the AFD. It is amazing that you would make such a post. The article creator made at least three articles for winners of the award, sourced only by copy-pasting from the websites of the subjects or to a different Wikipedia, in a clear violation of the Wikipedia policies WP:COPYVIO and WP:V. Copyvio is a major issue, since this article is mostly copy-paste from the website identified. I SAID that the person was "likely notable per WP:PROF." But the article could not remain on Wikipedia as it existed at the time of the nomination without violating WP:COPYVIO. Notability of the subject of an article is not a license to copy and paste his biography from a copyrighted website. The undesirable outcome of AFD (from my perspective) would be deletion. The preferable outcome would be that someone fluent in German would add references to reliable sources, from the references I provided on the article's talk page or from wherever. Do that and I will gladly withdraw the nomination. But also see the related articles Herbert Gleiter. which is only referenced to the German Wikipedia (not a reliable source) and Hans-Peter Seidel, which is mostly a copy and paste copyvio, Please, please, similarly improve them so they do not also have to go to AFD because of the violations of WP:COPYVIO.Do not just harrumph about how the subjects of the articles are "notable." That does not license plagiarism to remain in Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The nom itself states that this person is likely notable (and David and Xxanthippe show he clearly is). AfD is not for cleaning up copyvio. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The questionable parts of the article may have to be rewritten, but it surely should not be deleted. Is there a reason why nobody suggests the obvious and ask the professor whether the few lines from his website can be used on wikipedia (which I doubt he'd have a problem with)? ylloh (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After the edits by Edison, David Eppstein, and myself, I don't think the original argument of the nom still applies.ylloh (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No copyright violation left. Surely it would have been easier for Edison to rewrite a couple of sentences rather than AfD this and then post that diatribe above? --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think the copyright problems were sufficient for nomination to AfD. A few minutes of cleaning up the text is all that was needed. In any case, there's clearly no copyright issues with the article now. (And the subject easily passes WP:PROF with a GS h-index of 50+ and by being a 2010 winner of the Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Prize.) Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 15:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I withdraw the request for deletion, in light of the corrections of the copyvios. Some general responses to statements above: Plagiarism and copyright violations cannot be ignored just because the subject of an article is notable. The policy WP:COPYVIO calls for blanking the copyvio, and deleting the article if the result is unreadable. It is unreasonable to demand that an editor doing new page patrol who finds such a stub must find references and translate them from German, and rewrite each such article, and even more unreasonable to demand that the new page patroller write to the copyright holder and obtain CC licensing. This one was not "new." It had remained in an unacceptable state for 5 days, with the creator removing any tags placed on it for copyvio and for BLP violations)Such a demand shows a lack of awareness of how fast a plagiarist can create new copy/paste stubs, and how many such editors are busy in any given week. If there were 60 hours in a day, perhaps I could rewrite all the new articles such as this which are copyvio stubs. AFD is indeed not the best venue for dealing with similar problems. WP:COPYVIO mentions alternatives, such as blanking the copyvio and posting it on the noticeboard for copyright violations. Thanks to those who edited the article. Edison (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2012 (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.