Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waldo Mootzka

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Waldo Mootzka[edit]

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

Waldo Mootzka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am trully cautious, but this might be copyvio according to this and this The Banner talk 19:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the Subject is notable, but if someone could have a word with the creator about copyright, that would be great. Vexations (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are several cite errors in the article. I would say delete unless they were fixed, in which case weak keep. ~Cupper (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Meets WP:NARTIST: the article itself claims he is in a half dozen museum collections. I have already confirmed one collection, and the others seem likely. The article is by a student editor.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've confirmed three collections (example). The page is a great addition to Wikipedia. It needs some cleanup, but the notability is very clear.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I did not nominate because of notability but because op copyright concerns. At the time of nominating it was 58% copyvio. The Banner talk 20:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Banner, I don't believe AfD is the right venue for copyright concerns. That would either be CSD, or simply edit out the offending portions and request a revdel. Onel5969 TT me 20:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio has been fixed. I think the history should be left for a few days, as this is a class project, and perhaps the teacher would like to see that copyvio.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, just saw this note. I'll refrain from working on it so the student editor can engage. (I got excited learning about this artist.) Netherzone (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As my concern was copyvio only: request speedy close as keep. The Banner talk 21:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Banner, I removed the dups the dup detector identified. For the closer's edification: do you think a {{copyvio-revdel}} would be warranted here?
Cupper52, this AfD could be closed speedily except for your conditional delete !vote (which I don't believe discloses a genuine WP:DELREASON—citation errors are not grounds for deletion). Would you consider striking your delete? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And also it was created by a student editor. ~Cupper (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know it is not prohibited to student-editors - or any other type of editor - to write articles. So please, with draw your delete vote and lets get this over with. The Banner talk 18:03, 18 November 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Waldo_Mootzka&oldid=990265896"