Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William S. Dalton


 * 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   no consensus. No consensus about the notability issue. The copyright problems do not compel deletion as they can be resolved by reverting to a pre-copyvio version. Alessandra Napolitano, please do not remove the quotations of copyvio material in this discussion, as short quotations do not infringe on copyright.  Sandstein  08:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

William S. Dalton

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a personal page for amusement. This person is relatively unknown outside of his institution. Livingtaino (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 26.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  20:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:ACADEMIC as the former dean of the University of Arizona School of Medicine.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  23:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Nominator is a new user whose only contribution to Wikipedia after setting up an account is to nominate this article for deletion, claiming without offering any evidence that the article was created "for amusement".  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  23:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Cullen328. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, copyright violation, explained below. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment (re: close paraphrases to the point of copyvio concerns) Before keeping, I'd review this Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  04:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply If his name appears in two different articles about him, is that a copyright violation? If the name of his university appears in two different articles about him, is that a copyright violation?  If two article about an oncologist both contain the word "oncology", is that a copyright violation?  If several articles about someone who founded something contain the word "founding", is that a copyright violation?  How about the articles about Doctors Anderson, Fenske and Betzer?  There is similar wording in articles about them.  Are those articles copyright violations as well, or is it just that various articles about a person's professional credentials contain similar wording, and similar wording also appears in various articles about other people with similar professional backgrounds?  Remove "Dr Dalton" from the quote test and based on wording in common, now we ought to be suspicious of articles about Doctors Sneed, Nathan, Anderson, Monroe, Rodriguez and Johnson.  We don't really think that articles about all of these doctors are copyright violations of each other, do we?  I see no evidence of a copyright violation here.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  06:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course isolated word and phrase matches aren't copyright violations. However, commonalities in phrasing, sentence structure, and the order in which facts are presented can add up to close paraphrase. For example, the source says "His research interests include biochemical mechanisms of drug resistance and new drug discovery. He is also an expert in the biology and treatment of multiple myeloma." The article relates this as "His research interests include biochemical mechanisms of drug resistance and new drug discovery. Dr. Dalton also is an expert in the biology and treatment of multiple myeloma." Articles with such severe foundational copyright problems are unacceptable. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's extremely unfortunate that when copyright problems are gainsaid, it becomes necessary to provide excerpts from the infringing material to prove their existence. Once this discussion is closed, I intend to remove the quotations from my comment, after which revdel can be used. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 07:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the current infringements seem to have introduced by, it may be possible to remedy the situation by reverting the article. Review of this matter is complicated by the fact that the source originally cited in the article, prior to Kickoff86's handiwork, is now a dead link. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Very prolific and influential scientist. Web of Science lists 279 publications that have been cited over 12,000 (!) times with an h-index of 58 (!). Article is badly written and any possible copyvio issues need to be addressed, but subject clearly meets WP:PROF. --Guillaume233 (talk) 12:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject clearly passes WP:ACADEMIC as demonstrated by Guillaume233. If the article is a copyvio you don't have to delete it - just rewrite it for heavens sake! --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There - I wikified it, did a partial rewrite, and added sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete He has won only as many awards as other researchers at that institution. The article reads like a resume. --LivingTaino (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * LivingTaino, I am striking out the word "delete" from your comment above. Since you are the one who nominated this article for deletion, your "delete" !vote is already on the record, and you only get to !vote once. Of course, you can comment here as much as you like - just don't put the word "delete" in front of your comment. --MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition, that's a weird reason. So if someone won a Nobel, but worked in an institute where another colleague won two Nobels, the first one wouldn't be notable any more? --Guillaume233 (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In any case, his notability is not based on any awards he has won, but on his heavily cited body of published work - as well as his tenure as dean of a major medical school. --MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per copyvio and close-paraphrase. With the extent of such content, I'd surmise the article should have been G12'd and not AfD'd. R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  22:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Just clicking the "news" link above gives several good sources. The book link is not very useful, many books cite his work. The Scholar link lists 11,900 articles that reference this person's research. As an aside, it is very rare to see an AfD for a researcher with this kind of citation data, this person is miles ahead of most bios that are discussed here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2011 (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.