Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruppert Rudolph Hunziker

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. — Aitias // discussion 18:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruppert Rudolph Hunziker[edit]

Blatant copyright infringement and conflict-of-interest (User:Rpclod writing about (R)u(p)ert). Blatant infringement from http://www.plantsciences.ucdavis.edu/ucceRice/editor/hunziker.htm. Author removed previous CSD tag. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 17:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: At first glance this seems like a reasonable article about a productive scientist, now dead, who wrote various publications. But a Google check shows almost nothing about him apart from some genealogy stuff and the UC Davis article. No evidence of notability other than this one article and the subject's papers - and any researcher is likely to publish a number of papers during their career. (The copyright infringement could be fixed easily - don't think this is the real issue). Aymatth2 (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how one finds "Blatant copyright infringement and conflict-of-interest". While facts in the two are similar (and the UC Davis article is specifically cited), the content in the Wikipedia article is more substantial and the text and presentation differ substantially. Specific details regarding any concern would be appreciated. The co-existence of an "R" and a "P" in the subject's name and the author's nom de Wiki is coincidental. Removal of a previous tag was inadvertant.
The above commenters have obviously contributed very significantly to Wikipedia and perform valuable service by reviewing new articles. However, I caution that Wikipedia needs to be careful: historians have a role in defining societal values, not just recording information. In this instance, contributors to articles on a second-rate pedophile rapper and a minor league pro wrestler would delete an article regarding a scientist who provided early warning of immense damage to a critical agricultural area and helped transfer agricultural knowledge to another country. I realize that what occurs with one article does not necessarily define the notability of another, but relative balance is needed.--Rpclod (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I recognize your concern that an article about a scientist who has made valuable contributions is being considered for deletion, while articles about people whose importance in your view (and mine) is highly questionable are retained. But Wikipedia does have basic guidelines about what can be included and what cannot, and a key one is notability. Although often violated, the principle is that all content should be backed up by reliable sources that are independent of the subject (e.g. not self-published) and that an article should have "several" such independent sources. Everyone has different views on what subjects are important: the notability test avoids the issue. Paris Hilton is notable because there is a great deal of independent commentary about her. Whatever my personal views, I am not notable in the Wikipedia sense: nobody has written about me. If you could find independent sources that discuss Hunziker's life or works other than the one UC Davis article, that would establish notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. This doesn't seem to be a blatant copyvio or conflict-of-interest, but on the other hand, I don't think it passes WP:PROF either. Ruppert Hunziker may well have made plenty of useful contributions to science, but there needs to be evidence that he was particularly highly-regarded as an expert in his field - not all academics deserve articles. I'd prefer if someone more knowledgeable in the area than me could judge this one, though. Terraxos (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Side Comments: there is a minor copyvio - one paragraph copied from the UC Davis article. Trivial to fix. I can't see the conflict of interest with an soil chemist who died aged 80 five years ago. Maybe the big agri-combos are watching this debate with bated breath. I doubt it. Personally, I think "conflict of interest" is not a very useful idea. If an article is neutral, balanced, fully backed up reputable independent sources, I don't care who wrote it. But I want sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think there will be sources. He was a doctoral graduate who went into commercial work and published a few papers, which apparently have not been cited since, at least as far as the journals in Scopus & Web of Science are concerned, but also checking the miscellany of material in Google scholar, which lists just his Masters and doctoral theses and nothing else. We have had this problem before with scientists who do all their work in industry in many different fields; if nobody writes about them, and they don't publish significantly in journals, or write widely used textbooks, it's almost impossible with available sources to find out how they may have influenced people or been regarded as an authority. There may be sources eventually, in various agricultural publications in the area or published memoirs, but normally this is something we just cannot find evidence for, except in the very rare sporadic cases where some specialist historian has actually written something. DGG (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: I've added a COPYVIO tag to the article at the start of the two paragraph copyright violation. The second paragraph might have an extra sentence at the start but from then on it's a copy from an online source. I've also added the article to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 January 9. Even though a deletion does seem to be in the works. Future participants in this deletion discussion may want to look at the untagged version of the page here Usrnme h8er (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gscholar only turns up one hit. The UCD link doesn't indicate he was a professor, and the online site for the Davis newspaper (behind a paywall, but I have a subscription) doesn't turn up any hits. There are lots and lots of PhDs in soil science working for private companies in this valley, and I'm not finding anything to distinguish this particular one.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the minor copyvios and the lack of reliable sourcess. Appears to fail notability guidelines, as is shown by the low number of search results on both Google and Gscholar. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 10:29, 10 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.