Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Schaal

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. Given evidence that there is not a copyvio, and agreement that notability has been met, the other issues wouldn't impinge on this article's existence and thus is a Keep. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Schaal[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Copyright violation,Delete immediately it contains text copied verbatim from https://stefan-schaal.net Janrpeters (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. AfD is the wrong venue for copyright violations. But more importantly, the article has been extensively edited by Sschaal1 and Sschaal2, now blocked for sockpuppetry. If there has been any copying, I think we can safely infer that the owner of the copyrighted material has, by editing the material into the article here, granted permission for it to be used here. The attempts to delete the article began at more or less the same time as Sschaal was blocked from editing the article and an IP editor added a reference to Der Spiegel alleging financial improprieties on the part of Schaal; that timing seems unlikely to be a coincidence. If the subject of the article was happy to have a self-edited puff piece about him here, he has no basis for complaint when the article becomes balanced with properly sourced but negative information. Given the pattern of edits, it may be worth contacting Jan Peters offline to verify that the edits made here under his name are really his. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Schaal meets WP:PROF. AfD is not for clean-up. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I talked to an administrator who is an expert in copyright. She and I agree that the website is most likely a mirror of the article, meaning no infringement.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears the web site was created in July 2018 (at least judging from its DNS registration; its newness is also evidenced by the fact that archive.org has no record of it). The oldest (deleted) versions of the article here, created by...hmm...Janrpeters...what a coincidence...are from 2012, and have very similar text in them. So it does appear that the copying went the other way, as you say. The article history does show some copying from elsewhere, but it was deleted and those revisions were suppressed. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the evidence presented, not copyvio. And clearly notable. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite the apparent COI, there's no question he's notable for both WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Papaursa (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it were just a case of highly cited publications, I might allow WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE in this case (although we don't at this point have a request that's clearly from the subject). But with the IEEE Fellow, he passes multiple WP:PROF criteria, and the (positive) Washington Post and (negative) Spiegel coverage also make a strong case for GNG. I think that's too much to ignore. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2018 (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.