Talk:Peter Kranke

Untitled
I do not think that this article fulfills the relevance requirements of Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.253.51.149 (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

UDP and COI tag reasoning
COI and UDP tags per Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am a WP:VRT volunteer who has been communicating with the subject of this article. He is interested in getting the tags removed, and says this has already been done on the corresponding German-wiki article. Because the article was tagged as a result of community discussion, it would not be appropriate for any single editor to remove them unilaterally without consensus to do so. Should an RFC be started? What do you recommend? ~Anachronist (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that any editor in good standing can remove the COI tag unilaterally (or boldly) if they believe that there are no COI-related issues. COI-related issues could be: promotional tone, unverifiable claims, due weight problems, or key facts (as covered by reliable sources) omitted, etc. However, I don't think the article is currently free of these problems, so it will probably require some clean up before removing the tag. MarioGom (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Any editor can remove or contest the COI/UDP tags on the article if they believe they no longer apply. If there are concerns they still apply, a community consensus should be formed first and the article clean up. SamHolt6 (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My concern is that this tag wasn't just decided by one editor, there was discussion and consensus to add this tag in lieu of deleting the article, and there hasn't been any significant improvement to the article since then. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I cannot see any concerns regarding unjustified promotional claims. The content is pretty much the same as a German page and the scientific credits can easily be verified in pubmed.gov or researchgate, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.27.255.4 (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The claim "This article relies too much on references to primary sources." seem odd, since this is the way to go for scientific reasoning and simply adds credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.27.255.4 (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. Secondary sources are preferred, and the bulk of the citations here are to the subject's own works. Whatever the German Wikipedia does is completely irrelevant here. Each Wikipedia operates by its own rules. The citations to primary sources almost seems like a concealment of a lack of notability and makes it hard to determine if the subject even meets WP:PROF criteria. Also 141.27.255.4, if you have a conflict of interest (possible based on your IP address) please disclose it. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)