Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edwin Gräupl


 * 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 delete. MelanieN (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Edwin Gräupl

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

According to a statement at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:EGportrait2016.jpg, User:Edwin41 is the subject, Edwin Gräupl.

Following an upload of an identical image, I ran a Checkuser on Commons and have determined that Ritamaria48, who began this article, is a puppet of Edwin41.

The two principal contributors to this article are its subject, User:Edwin41 and his puppet, User:Ritamaria48. The subject may or may not meet WP:EN's requirements for notability, but he certainly cannot write his own article as he has done here. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 09:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Further to the above, at Talk:Edwin Gräupl, an IP confirms that User:Ritamaria48 is Edwin Gräupl's wife. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 17:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The page appears to be a copy & paste move from de:Benutzer:Edwin41/EdwinEnglish. The German Wikipedia sandbox was created by the 'husband account' while the English Wikipedia article was created using copy & paste by the 'wife account'. Some kind of attribution of the original source may be necessary if the page is kept. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * James, the article is rather neutrally worded. I don't believe the serious COI concerns alone are reason enough for deletion, if he is judged to be notable as an academic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable as an academic judged by GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete as I examined his article and there's simply nothing else apart from the apparent honorary awards which are nothing for Wikipedia, WorldCat only shows 8 library holdings and there's simply nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  23:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Google scholar finds five publications, some with one citation and some with zero, far below the standard for WP:PROF. And membership in an archaic religious club also doesn't confer notability. We can also consider the autobiography and sockpuppetry issues as reasons to delete, but why when there's so little other reason to keep? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable academic and educator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Probable delete -- The Order of the Holy Sepulchre has 52 Lieutenancies, presumably one for each country. He was thus the leader of this order in Austria.  If we had an article on the order in Austria and what it did, listing the successive Lieutenants, I might have voted to keep, but we do not.  I suspect "professor" is being used in the American sense of lecturer.  He then became an inspector, not chief inspector (or such like).  Finally he self-published 5 books: it all looks NN to me.  Is there any more in the German WP?  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2016 (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.