Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan George Freezen


 * 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) 18:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Jan George Freezen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced biography. Questionable notability. Article creator refused to provide additional sources for verification. Kumioko (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Alternative names:
 * --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:55, 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 Houbraken, Immerzeel, Hobbes, Nagler... I have no idea where the "questionable notability" comes from. Fram (talk) 15:09, 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 but don't attack me because I think they are poorly written, poorly sourced and have questionable notability. Kumioko (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Since everything in these four articles came from a reliable source, I wonder what you mean about "verifiability". You didn't have any specific question wrt verifiability, you just made a blanket demand for more sources, never once making it clear what it is that is supposedly "unsourced" and "unverified" in these articles, and obviously not making any effort whatsoever to follow WP:BEFORE and find some sources for yourself (even by following the Interwikilinks that most of these articles had). That you don't like how I creayed these articles is definitely not a valid reason for deletion though. Fram (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I grant you that Dictionary is a notable reference but the way you used it isn't. Wikipedia has basically stopped the use of general references for inline citations, putting it as a note, with no publisher, no page number or other meaningful informaiton about the reference is also weak. I also should not have to hand hold you through the process of creating an article. You are an administrator and you have been here long enough to know. Or at least I thought you had. Additionally as I stated before I searched google and other sources looking for additional material to use and there wasn't any that I could find. Also as noted before I don't think its appropriate to create the article almost verbatim of the original reference. Even if that "Note" is considered a source these articles need a lot of work. Kumioko (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Any evidence that "Wikipedia has basically stopped" doing this? As for "no page number", I always give the name of the exact entry: considering the fact that it is an alphabetical source, finding it is not very hard for the literate under us. But you are free to suggest any improvements to the Bryan template, just remember that this is hardly the right way to raise such concerns though. But thanks for admitting that these 4 AfDs were totally misguided and put rather incorrectly. Please withdraw them. Fram (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, in the refernce provided, which is located here you copied the entire paragraph as follows: He first studied under Jan van Nikkelen, and afterwards under Philip van Dyk, of whom he became one of the best scholars, and with whom he stayed seven years at the Hague. He was patronized by the Duke of Hesse, and was appointed historical and portrait painter to the court of Cassel. He possessed a great knowledge of paintings, which he acquired in Germany, Italy, France, and in the school of Philip van Dyk — an acquisition which was of the greatest use in the establishment of the Cassel Gallery. He died at Cassel in 1775. without changing anything. This is simply not acceptable. Kumioko (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? Please link to any policy or guideline that these articles are violating. Fram (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you serious, you want me to provide you a policy that states you cannot copy and plaste text from a source without changing it? The problem is even worse than I thought then! Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are arguing that the book is out of copyright you are correct but its still Plagiarism. It still violates Copyright and plagiarism. Shall I go on? As an administrator you really should know this already! Kumioko (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to start an AN threed about my "policy violations", if you think that having started these 4 AfDs wasn't enough of a laugh. feel free to Boomerang yourself with even more silly antics. Fram (talk) 18:17, 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.