Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermann Freese
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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) 18:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hermann Freese
- Hermann Freese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced biography. Questionable notability. Article creator refused to provide additional sources for verification. Kumioko (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 Clement [1], Ebe[2], Champlin & Perkins[3]... I have no idea where the "questionable notability" comes from. Fram (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. I would also note that in the early days of Wikipeda general references were fine but in recent years it is preferred to use inline citations. Kumioko (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for demonstrating my point. These articles are copies from a public domain source, as indicated clearly in the "notes" section. For this kind of article, "inline citations" are definitely not preferred, as I don't source sentence X or Y to the source, but I copy the source. You haven't indicated "what" you wanted to verify when you demanded sources (not "additional sources", you claimed that these articles were unsourced). Since the articles were taken straight from a reliable source, I didn't feel the need to justify your demands with any effort. If you had had any specific questions, I would have gladly answered, but this basic and baseless approach doesn't deserve any further effort. Fram (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. I would also note that in the early days of Wikipeda general references were fine but in recent years it is preferred to use inline citations. Kumioko (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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.