Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Haenle


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 04:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Paul Haenle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to be paraphrased from but I'm not quite confident enough to go for WP:G12  wintonian  talk  18:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Query - did you raise the copyright issue at WP:CP? I agree - looks paraphrased. Are you also concerned about WP:GNG? Stalwart 111  00:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 18:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 18:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't think there are serious copyright issues. The paraphrasing is very short (and of purely factual information, on which copyright claims are weak), and footnoting adds significant new context and meaning not present in the source. As for notability, there is ample coverage in the article, including the NYT profile of him on his wedding. This is not surprising, as NSC staff directors for regions are fairly significant in the foreign policy world (arguably more influential, if lower profile, than ambassadors). Ray  Talk 17:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- as Ray said, the paraphrasing is not sufficient to hit copyvio problems and there seems to be enough there to meet GNG (and no argument against GNG has been presented). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2012 (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.