Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christoph Wulf


 * 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Christoph Wulf

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Currently, basically the whole article consists of copyright-violating material (translation of the subject's website) that was added in 2012 and is tricky to revert; before that, all there was was a sourceless promotional mess written by the subject himself. No revision of this article is worth saving. PJvanMill (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  ~ Amkgp  💬  14:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  ~ Amkgp  💬  14:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Autobiographies violate Wikipedia terms of use. We should proactively strike every article that began as an autobiography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Terms of Use does not prohibit autobiographies, nor does the COI guidelines outright ban from COI editors from editing pages where they have one. Unless the article meets one of the reasons for deletion, for instance, the notability guidelines, then it should be kept. I don't have much time for a detail review of the article so I'll !vote on this later. &#123;&#123; reply to &#124;Can I Log In&#125;&#125; 's talk page! 23:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT unless someone would like to take the effort to stub this down and rewrite from scratch. I think he passes WP:AUTHOR with multiple published reviews of his works on JSTOR              but we can't keep it in this form. If someone does rewrite it please ping me so I can change my opinion here. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , take a look now as it is now a functional stub.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 07:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the reviews listed in my earlier comment (and per WP:PROF and the citations listed below by Eostrix) now that this has been stubbed down. The books and their reviews should be added to the article, eventually, but that does not rise to the level of a deletion discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftify it, clean it up in draft space, bring it back when done. That article right there is most likely good content. Now don't delete it because a COI editor was involved. The COI guidelines does not prohibit COI editing, but rather states that it's just discoraged. &#123;&#123; reply to &#124;Can I Log In&#125;&#125; 's talk page! 05:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment So we are at AfD since the PROD by PJvanMill was contested&mdash;BY HIMSELF? WHO DOES THAT other than an actual ineligible PROD or relizing it's controversial. This was a BLPPROD, and it was apparently ineligible for BLPPROD since it somehow had sources. There was never a PROD, so a it would still be eligible. Now it was PRODed, and later contested by the PRODer himself. SInce it was an eligible PROD, all I can say other than criticizing him is, why? &#123;&#123; reply to &#124;Can I Log In&#125;&#125; 's talk page! 05:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * @Can I Log In I saw just after proposing deletion that it had been proposed for deletion before: . My prod was therefore invalid, and I admit that it was a dumb prod, I shouldn't have rushed it. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Or wait, are you saying that that prod doesn't count as a former prod because it was a BLPPROD? In that case, I had no idea. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, as easily meeting WP:NACADEMIC criteria 1 with his work cited over 14 thousand times with a h-index of 55 . As for the copyvio and overly long content I have performed the following two edits to resolve them: . I am unable to ascertain which page exactly this is alleged to come from, but I suggest PJvanMill place a Template:Copyvio-revdel with supporting links so that copyrighted material is revision deleted. The photograph of the subject is useful, and a short stub is functional.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 07:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Eostrix. In hindsight, this is probably what I should have done in the first place. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.