Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudolph Frederick Stapelberg


 * 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. EdJohnston (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Rudolph Frederick Stapelberg

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable author of technical books. Article was started by User:Stapelbe and has been edited mainly by a single-purpose account who is possibly affiliated with the publisher of Stapelberg. A Google search, when removing sites like amazon, borders, etc, only gets 33 results. There's nothing at all on Google News about him. Sandor Clegane (talk) 03:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep We are of the opinion that the self-promoted Wikipedia watchdog, Sandor Clegane, is displaying a prejudicial discrimination towards Australian authors. His UTC tag (presumably a university) might explain some of the prejudice, as the author Rudolph Frederick Stapelberg writes technical books. We are also of the opinion that Sandor Clegane has some apparent self-appointed malicious mission against authors featuring on Wikipedia. Perhaps his own muscling-in action should be restricted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acpredat (talk • contribs) 05:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm...UTC is "Coordinated Universal Time" Everyone here has it. Including you.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We too? Drmies (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The article smells of cut and paste, desperately needs wikification, is centred around the list of books that the User:Stapelbe and / or Acpredat appears to have a financial interest in and has deep COI issues. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. A dog of an article; if you strip out the mess and extraneous BS, there's almost nothing left. Hairhorn (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delte basically a resume, spam for a non-notable author. Drawn Some (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. We agree with the nominator and, for instance, Drawn Some. We have also restored the AfD notification that users Acpredat saw fit to remove. And we love the majestic plural. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have a right to step into this fray, as I am the subject of the posted article - Rudolph Frederick Stapelberg. While it has been somewhat flattering to see my name posted on Wikipedia, I feel that this fray about who should feature, or who shouldn't, has become daunting indeed. I also feel that the initial presumptions should be set straight. I did NOT initiate this posting, nor did I adopt the account of 'stapelbe'. The content of the article appears very similar to my books' autobiography. The posting DID originate from some book retailer (presumably from a member of the book retailer's assoc. - hence the account stapelbe). In all objectivity, I do find the person 'Sandor Clegane', who seems reminescent of 'Brotherhood Without Banners' somewhat vindictive, but at the same time, I also find 'Acpredat', who appears to be a member of the publishing academy, somewhat hard-headed in prevailing to maintain the posting. For my part, the posting of my name on Wikipedia is not conducive to maintaining any privacy, and I for one, would welcome it to be removed. The Google listing of book retailers under Rudolph Frederick Stapelberg should be sufficient enough for any book retailer's association or publishing academy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RFStapelberg (talk • contribs) 23:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing up the confusion. But in regards to Acpredat's accusations, I have no 'malicious' or 'vindictive' motives because you are technical author. My reasons for deletion were solely based on reasons of conflict of interest and notability.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Very weak Delete but a very weak delete, because of the 2009 book published by springer, a very reputable technical publisher. Too early to get a usable library count, or reviews. When there are reviews, the article should be reconsidered. DGG (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - NN with other issues    7   talk   23:59, 25 May 2009 (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.