Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eduard Frederich


 * 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   speedy keep. Article is sourced, and if the notability were questionable, he wouldn't have been in that encyclopedia in the first place. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Eduard Frederich

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced biography. Questionable notability. Article creator refused to provide additional sources for verification. Kumioko (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The page on German Wikipedia has better references, indicating he may be notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, ridiculous nomination from an author that doesn't seem to understand the basics of sourcing and verifiability. What needs verification? The tet comes from an existing encyclopedia, as evidenced by the note. Kumioko is quite aware of this, he notes on my talk page that I copy paste the text from an existing source, which is correct but obviously contradicts his claim that he needs verification.
 * This painter specifically has, apart from his entry in Bryan (which should be sufficient), an entry in Bott or a paragraph in this article (to give only some freely available sources, more recent ones are usually not freely available). Plus of course the sources identified in the German Wikipedia article. I have no idea where the "questionable notability" comes from. It seems that the nominator for these three AfDs has forgotten WP:BEFORE... Fram (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fram I have created hundreds of articles and I completely understand sourcing and verifiability. I also understand that these articles don't meet it and after looking for additional sources I came up with nothing. I also do not like the fact that you created them nearly verbatim of the source only changes a few small things. If you think they need to be kept that's fine but don't attack me because I think they are poorly written, poorly sourced and have questionable notability. I would also note that in the early days of Wikipeda general references were fine but in recent years it is preferred to use inline citations. As far as Before goes, I checked for references using google news, books and scholar and I left a note on your page asking you to add some but you refused. So now we are here. Kumioko (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What you actually did was this note, which made incorrect claims (the articles are not unsourced, obviously) and threatened to AfD them if I didn't fix theù first. You gave not a single specific indication of what was supposed to be the problem, didn't indicate that you tried to find any more info but failed (which may be true for this article, but is hardly believable for something like Heinrich Freudweiler), you didn't indicate that you believed that the articles were unverifiable (which, since they had a reliable source, would have been wrong anyway); you just claimed "they are unsourced - source them or I'll AfD them". Sorry, but that's not how it works here on so many levels. To just name the most basic one; even being unsourced is not a valid reason for deletion. Fram (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in the other AFD I gave you the opportunity to fix the mess you created but you refused so I submitted them to AFD. The citation you gave is not a reference, its a hatnote. It doesn't give any of the information required in a citation. Who is the publisher, what page is the text found on, etc. Calling that a citation is laughable. Also, its not just the matter of the citation. You plagiarized the work copying virtually the entire article word for word. I also searched google for additional references and came up empty. Maybe there are some maybe there aren't but these articles sorely need additional refernces and a complete rewrite to not be plagiarisms of the orginal "reference". Kumioko (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Hatnote"? You've really lost the plot now... The source is alpahabetical, I give the name of the exact entry; how is that worse than giving a page number? It's not as if you have to read the whole source to get the exact location, it is right there in the note on the article. And the fact that you don't understand "plagiarism" at all has now been plastered on enough pages, I think everyone gets your lack of point by now. Fram (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll make you a deal Fram, if you can show me a policy somewhere that says its ok to cut and paste text from a source, out of print or otherwise and that its ok to create a Wikipedia article with said cut and pasted text without changing it. Or if you can show me a policy that says that the Note format you are using is an acceptable citation format, please let me know and I will watchdraw this. Kumioko (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You may have been within spitting distance of a point if the text was unattributed. You did note the existence of Template:Bryan in each of these articles, yes? Tarc (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)You linked to the policy yourself, Plagiarism. Take a look at [[Wikipedia:Plagiarism, the relevant section here: "A public domain source may be summarized in the same way as it is for copyrighted material (and cited in the same way as copyrighted material), but the source's text can also be copied directly into a Wikipedia article verbatim. If the text is copied then it must be cited and attributed through the use of an appropriate attribution template, or similar annotation, which is usually placed in a "References section" near the bottom of the page". Looking at other attribution templates, some are more elaborate, some are Much simpler, like Template:1828 Webster's Dictionary, and some are quite similar, like Template:Nuttall. Improvements to the attribution template used can be discussed at the template talk page of course. Thanks for the withdrawal of the AfDs! Fram (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't prove a thing Fram. Yes it may be "summarized" not copied. I have asked User:Moonriddengirl about this issue. She is pretty much the expert on Copyright and things related to it soif she says these are good I will withdraw. Kumioko (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can lead you to the water, but I can't make you drink... "but the source's text can also be copied directly into a Wikipedia article verbatim." If you don't know the relevant policies, don't start AfD's (or make demands at people's user pages), but try to get more information "beforehand". You are fast becoming a net negative on Wikipedia, wasting the time of many people (not just me) over and over again with ridiculous accusations, baseless claims, useless demands and general cluelessness. Fram (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fram you are being ridiculous and overly defensive. Why can't you just wait until the AFD finishes. You also have to finish what that says: If the text is copied then it must be cited and attributed through the use of an appropriate attribution template, or similar annotation, which is usually placed in a "References section" near the bottom of the page.... That still doesn't mean we should be doing it and its still a lazy way to write an article even if it is allowed. It reduces Wikipedia's integrity when we direct copy information from a source without citing it even if it is a public work. Kumioko (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep per Fram. Article is plainly not unsourced, and the subject's entry in a "standard reference work" is prima facie evidence of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2013 (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.