Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey Hull


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Geoffrey Hull

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Copyright violation, but not sufficiently clear-cut for a speedy delete. The article appears to be a direct translation of tet:Geoffrey Hull, which is a copy-paste copyvio of http://webzoom.freewebs.com/jpesperanca/lusofonia_Parte_3.pdf (p. 40 et seq.). The English article is therefore an unauthorized derivative work of the copyrighted Tetum langage PDF. It is also an unsourced WP:BLP, failing WP:N.  Sandstein  11:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please wait just a few days, I have a new version sent me by G.Hull in person, with appropriate references. Thanks.--Padaneis (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that autobiographical material is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia articles (see Autobiography for details), largely due to neutral point of view concerns. The article will stand a much better chance of survival if it is neutrally written using reliable secondary sources. --Darkwind (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. I suppose material is not autobiographical, but meanwhile, perhaps the present article could be deleted, unless this prevents recreation. I have to examine the material. Thanks, --Padaneis (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

New Version
Hello, a new version, to meet wikipedia standards has been written. Please have a look. Wikifying now. Thanks--Padaneis (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: the new version contains only primary sources, specifically, work written by Professor Hull. The article will need to cite reliable sources that are not related to Hull in order to establish notability and to allow other readers to verify its content. Cnilep (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks: I'll try to add more ones. Meanwhile, however, the parliament commision report is one and the above "lusofonia" another (but no longer copyviol). Going to add the latter to the article.--Padaneis (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A few third party references added. Perhaps more on the way. Kind regards, --Padaneis (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The references in the new article seem to establish notability. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: maybe implicit, since I worked to adapt the article to wikipedia standards. --Padaneis (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, but it would better to work the references in as inline citations. Good work! -- Nuujinn (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, Hull's work is very important for both Romance and Austronesian linguistics. His work on the Tetum dictionary is exceptionally important, like Webster or Dr.Johnson for English. I have no comments to make on Wiki editorial policy and leave this aspect to those who are more expert than I am. --LombardBeige (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - article now includes ample sourcing. Regards,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 01:02, 4 May 2010 (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.