Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Schmidt (Gynaecology and Obstetrics)


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Werner Schmidt (Gynaecology and Obstetrics)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable person. No indications of any significant achievements or independent coverage of this doctor. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  18:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. As a professor, fails WP:NACADEMICS. In addition, much of the page seems directly translated from the second source, which could raise copyright issues. --gdfusion (talk&#124;contrib) 19:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:SPA heavily at work here: Ab.bekhit. Nothing academic; no scientific discoveries. Probably a fine doctor, but not notable. LaMona (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt. This article has been repeatedly recreated and I can't find any evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm not sure what's going on here. The article creator - who so far has not edited anything else - initially created this as a copyvio in German, and it was accordingly speedy deleted. This time it was built up entirely in English, with the sources appearing as external links, but the last time the creator removed the AfD template, he also substituted copyvio German text. The article was tagged again as copyvio but I have removed that speedy deletion tag - having just rewritten and expanded the article, and noticing that the duplication detector was simply picking up the titles of the newspaper articles referenced. All that said, while there are now three newspaper articles cited, they are all about him, and it is immaterial to notability that they are all in German: two have the identical text and they are in two regional newspapers. I have been unable to find additional sources except reports originating from the university, such as this and this. While he had a distinguished career including both effective administrative service and furtherance of important research, is still a sought-after expert, and has received honorary doctorates, I do not believe he qualifies as notable under our guidelines. If someone else can find further independent sources, please ping me, I'd like to be able to save this. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The two newspaper articles are not identical: one was published at his 65th birthday, one his 70th.  There was significant copvio from them to the article until I rewrote it--it was not picked up because it was copyvio from the Google translation. Normally we treat honorary degrees from important universities as proof of notability, and I think we should cntinue to do so. It's a clear and distinctive marker.  As for underlying notability, the head of a major hospital is a notable physician.  DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Don't think it meets the relevant notability guidelines. I wish it did though. Salt as well, please.Forbidden User (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Article has been moved to Werner Otto Schmidt. Reviewing admin should remember to delete both articles should that be the outcome of this AFD. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:36, 28 August 2014 (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.