Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etienne Kuypers

From 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 delete. Despite the long incivil tirades from SPAs, there are no arguments to keep, and this is a copyvio (translations are derivative works). --Coredesat 06:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etienne Kuypers

Etienne Kuypers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Note: I composed a version of this AfD with the comments by single-purpose accounts filtered out at /Readable.

Copyvio (literally translated) from [1] (the site states 'alle rechten voorbehouden' (all rights reserved) at the bottom), also self-promotion (this guy has been an extreme pain for us on the Dutch Wikipedia (see nl:Overleg gebruiker:80.200.58.212/blockmsg), his article was salted on 10 April 2007 and he kept on recreating it with various spellings, whining on talk pages through his dynamic IP address, etc. We know it is him because he sent an email to Wikipedia from one of the addresses mentioned on his website, a moderator on the Dutch wiki did a check and confirmed it was sent from one of the spamming IP addresses[2]). Furthermore, I doubt his notability; as one can see, the titles of the "references" don't make any reference to him. 115 Google results. Finally, the article is poorly written ("who has always straddled the boundaries between Philosophy and Social Sciences"). SalaSkan 21:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Could this be speedied as a copyvio? --Charlene 01:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm unsure whether literal translations from a copyrighted website are strictly copyvios. I guess they are, but I don't know if this is speediable, so I listed it here just to be sure. SalaSkan 13:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. None of his work makes him notable by Wikipedia guidelines, as far as I can tell. Postmodern Beatnik 16:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear,

I cannot see why there is something wrong with this article. It is written with much help of a devoted Wikipedian. The Dutch comment is interesting, but I don't know what he wants to say exctly. So Dutchmen are the moralists they want to be? The sentence he quotes is perfect English. If you tell me what you want to change i nthis text, I will do rewrite this exactly how you want it.

Kind regards, Joblf — Joblf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC).


Dear all,

I can see that the Dutchmen made doubts on the credibility of me: the writer. Well, that's an insult! You don't know dr. Kuypers' work, now you are questioning his works? The story about the Dutch affaire is absolutely not known by me! This is ridiculous! Besides my text is NOT from his website. You can find all the sources and references in the mentioned publications. Please try to read these! I also cannot see what you mean by selfpromotion. The article is a good review of facts on Kuypers' works; with much help of a devoted Wikipedian. I am noy going to discuss this any further, because the text was perfect. Now a Dutchman makes his classic comment. I am prepared to rewrite the text, but please give the exact points you want to read in teh text.

regards, Joblf — Joblf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC).

Dear Etienne, first of all, people have asked you this a hundred times, sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Second, you are evidently a single-purpose account, see [3]. Third, I won't bother with replying to your messages anymore. Regards, SalaSkan 19:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Just one thing: the sentence I quoted is linguistically correct, but not written in an encyclopaedic manner. SalaSkan 19:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You claim that your text is "not from his website"? [4] is just a little too similar to Etienne Kuypers#Studies and Etienne Kuypers#Positions, don't you think? By the way, you confirmed it yourself here.SalaSkan 19:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete! I've seen far too much of this poor me, I'm trying so hard, I don't understand kind of talk on nl.wiki, including my talk page. The author is Etienne Kuypers himself. Joblf is yet another of his many aliasses and unnumerable IP-addresses. Dirk, E. Kuypers, Frits, H, Huub, Ludwig, L. Krawinkel, P, Per and Per Van Driel are among the others.

The guy has no encyclopedic significance at all (most of the Google hits refer to talk pages on Dutch wiki, endless similar talk as above, and some to his own website) and is a nuisance you'll soon wish to get rid of.

Please check:

RToV 20:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

*) English translation of the Dutch page:
Thes IP-numbers and one user account listed are part of the "Etienne Kuypers-(self)promotion group. On many talk pages appearing under the names "Dirk", "E. Kuypers", "Frits", "H", "Huub", "Ludwig", "L. Krawinkel", "P", "Per" of "Per van Driel". From these adresses again and again copy violation text containing self-promotion have been created on the self-started article "Etienne Kuypers" in many different spelling varieties. Also the person repeatedly has been added as "famous person" on the page Zutendaal where he lives. This has continued over and over again and explaining to him this was not the way to act did not have any effect. Many Wikipedians up until today are approached by the person to plead for restarting of the article. The article in many spelling variations has been blocked from remaking since april 10 2007. This automated text-message to add newly used IP-addreses can be found here. When harrasment continues a block request can be made or a block can be given. Due to the variable nature of the IP-addresses one day block suffices. Every time the person logs in his provider Belgacom allots a random number to him.

Delete The edits above and the conclusions drawn by both Salaskan and RToV are completely spot on and correct. The affair has cost many editors and sysops on wiki-nl lots of energy unfortunately. The sad part is this guy does exist and is a published philosopher who lives from his books published but he has ruined everything for himself by his endless "self-promotion campaign" which continues up until today. Apparently he does not realise his book sales are in fact ruined by what he publically did and which can now be googled world wide. Best wishes, MoiraMoira 20:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC) (sysop on Wikipedia-nl who has helped coordinate this affair and created the files on the case mentioned above)

  • Weak delete The documentation asserted for the notability of his books and other publications apparently consists of unselective lists of all publications in the subject, DGG (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm also suspecting something like that. Winkler Prins is one of the most renowned Dutch encyclopaedias, and I doubt someone with 115 Googlehits in 2007 will have been mentioned in an article of theirs in 1991. SalaSkan 09:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear all,

First of all: I am NOT the subject of the article! I have no idea why my text is not good enough. Now some Dutch Wikipedians are involved on this text, which is written with help of an American Wkipedian, but they don't give any arguments why my article is not good enough. Besides this, it is very, very immoral to wonder if the written information is correct. It is very easy to check all the information: especially the references in the Winkler Prins Encyclopedia. When someone is immoral to write "the guy has no encyclopedic significance at all" is easy to check by the reception of Kuypers, but I know the Dutchmen won't check this. There is a campaign against dr. Kuypers, which is not moral. Nobody has concrete arguments for this. But, dear Dutchmen, if you don't want to check all the references (dr. kuypers is a very respected philosopher in your country and in Belgium), check his students or his booksales. You can read his most important books, which are selected in my article. Maybe you wonder if these books are written? Maybe the ISBN of his books are an invention? Your behaviour is so provincial, typical Dutch by the way...

Have fun!

Kind regards, Job — Joblf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC).

Dear all,

I forgot something. One of the anonym persons above wrote that the text under 'studies' and 'positions' is from the website of dr. kuypers. Well, can you tell me how to write different things about the same facts? When the man studies at that university, I cannot mention another university! I have to describe his biography, and every biograhpy has facts; they remain the same in every text. Or not?

Have fun in Holland! Try to be reasonable instead of so immoral and provincial.

Regards, Job. — Joblf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC).

For me this discussion is very strange. The article is written with the help of a devoted Wikipedian, the text gives all the relevant information about the author; with enough references and significant sources. Of course these facts remain always the same, so it is easy to claim that the text is a copy. The text IS a copy, a copy of facts! Some facts are found on the homepage of the object, but there is no exact copy of these pages. You can find facts on the website, which are written down in the article. It is absurd to say that this is a copy of each other. Absolutely not! The Dutch Wikipedian-war against dr. Kuypers has no authentic arguments. They never give any arguments, they have not checked the information, they even don't know the relevance and the reception of Kuypers. They just come with insultst and so on. How can you talk like that, if you have never checked the reception of the author, his works, his sources, his references? How is this possible with editors? How can you speak like this when you don't know the object of the article? These people use immoral talk. It is very strange, but I can tell you the article gives all the relevant and correct information about a respected philosopher who published more than twenty books and more than threehunderd articles. There are a lot of publications where you can read on his reception, his influences, etc. The Dutch Wikipedian-war on this author is ridiculous, strange this unreasonable talk. Even more strange, that the American Wikipedians are listening to talk without concrete arguments.The article gives the exact information students wants to know, so for me there is no argument to delete this text. It is perfect like it is.

Kind regards, J — Joblf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC).


I looked to the text on the website and to the text in this W-article. The W-article is absolutely not a copying text! Of course existential facts keep the same, but there is absolutely no copying text. The article gives more accurate information on dr. Kuypers, which is not on his webpage. So I really cannot see any problem.

regards, Job — Joblf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC).

Dear Etienne, The "problem" is this is self-promotion from a series of randomly allocated IP-numbers belonging to a set of main-ranges that are allocated randomly to you by your provider Belgacom that all trace back to the village of Zutendaal where you live. The problem is that not every one making a living out of selling books about a specific topic is worthwhile to mention in an encyclopedia. The problem is that the article does not have any peer references/reviews only some comments from newspapers so the relevance of your work is vague. The problem is for you you cannot tell it is you otherwise you won't have any credibility left and the self-promotion cover is blown. The problem is you have spoilt matters by your own acts alas. The problem is that you made matters incredibly difficult for many dedicated Wikipedians by you endless tries to get yourself on Wikipedia. The main frustration for us all is this affair costs so much energy and leads to nothing. You started the account Kierkegaard on the Dutch Wikipedia a year ago. Only one article about yourself resulted. If you are a true Wikipedian we would have expected a lot of worth while contributions in your field on many articles. None resulted. Then later your article was nominated for deletion for reasons of copyvio, self promotion and non encyclopedic non substantiated overly positive content and the whole circus started leading to the results found above. Now the same article is placed on Wikipedia-en an similar circus is started including the whining comments in strange language telling every one "this is not true and what are you talking about and it is not me and the person is sooooo good". From a legitimate philosopher with some books and perhaps worthwhile mentioning on Wikipedia (that is up for grabs and I won't judge this at all) you have become a subject on google that colleages laugh about. This is not good for your own name so I really suggest you'd stop these actions now before your vanity causes you even more damage. I challenge you to abide by the outcome and start writing about philosophic topics via your account here and with Wikipedia-nl and show you are a valuable Wikipedian. Perhaps then in a few years time some one else will start a nice article about you. You cannot earn a reputation the way you publically did you see. MoiraMoira 08:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear MM,

AGAIN; you are insulting me of being dr. Kuypers himself, again you are telling all sorts of things which are not reality. There is something in your mind which I cannot help. I think you are paranoid, or sick otherwise. Your complete moralistic story about how to work, how to work not, and so on, is so typical Dutch. All writers who tried to write an article on dr. Kuypers were put down by your Dutch collegues; selfpromotion, copying, and so on. But the text has nothing to do with selfpromotion, nor with copying another text. The article is on a respected philosopher, the text just gives reasonable information on his work. This is just what students need. First this was wrong, second that was wrong, etc. Nobody said exactly what was wrong. Do not feel for dr. Kuypers. He does his work, we all will not stop this, because of your typical Dutch moralistic talk. The article on the English W was made with help of a devoted Wikipedian, until the Dutch came. At that time this was wrong, that was wrong, etc. Now you are telling there are not enough peerreferences.Again a new argument. Nice. What's next? How many peerreferences do you want? You are giving everytime another argument. Npbody said exactly what was wrong. Now it is the peerreferences. You are making yourself ridiculous. Do not bother on Kuypers: he is completely involved in his work. And what others think or say: it means you are there when others are talking and thinking about you, isn't it? Stay on your typical Dutch garden: provincial and moral all over the world. You can try to help writers with your comment, instead of insulting them.

Have fun in Holland! regards, Joblf — Joblf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC).

Dear MM,

By the way, I know you are not an intellectual, but I'll give you the peerreferences in the article you want so much; no. 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 and 16 are ALL PEERREFERENCES OF RESPECTED COLLEGUES OF DR. KUYPERS. Not enough? Or do not you know these scientists? Vague - as you call it? Or is it something else with you? - ignorance, or rancour? Maybe you know dr. kuypers personal, and did you have a guarrelsome relationship in the past? I really do not know. it is so childisg, all your comment, with everytime new arguments... So, here are your peerreferences! Check them, dear MM (I hate talking to a pseudonym; where is you courage? give your name and talk!). After you have checked all these peerreferences we can talk again. Maybe these peerreferences are not good enough, because you do not know the philosphers? Or maybe something else? Let me tell you, dear MM, these scientists/peerreferences are worldfamous. So, it is up to your knowledge and moral integrity.

Success. Joblf — Joblf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC).

“ I hate talking to a pseudonym; where is you courage? give your name and talk! ”
? Then tell us your name? Is it perhaps Etienne Kuypers? SalaSkan 10:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I told so often: there are several students who tries to write this article. I managed it with the help of an American Wikipedian, he says he is on vacation ruight now. The text was fully accepted on Wikipedia, untill a few moralistic Dutchmen came in between! The article is perfect as source for students. So I really won' go any further on this authorsubject. It is a ridiculous theme. An insult!! As long as nobody of Wikipedia gives his real name, we won't do that, except telling my forename - as you know. BUT DR. KUYPERS IS COMPLETELY OUT OF THE QUESTION AS AUTHOR!!!

Think about yourself, before insulting other people.

Regards Joblf — Joblf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC).

That's not what I'm talking about. You're saying "I hate talking to a pseudonym; where is you courage? give your name and talk!" Then why don't you give your own name? SalaSkan 11:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear,

You don't understand me, or you just cannot read my words exactly. We all give our names (you already know our forename, I gave you my forename; JOB), but as long as other people speak under pseudonym, it is logical that other ones also speak under pseudonym. That's logical, don't you think? But it is easy to talk under pseudonym and give comment (like Wikipedians do), while authors must gove their names. again: NONE OF US HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH KUYPERS. I gave you my forename, you can get my familyname, when all Wikipedians give their true familynames. Anyway; has this anything to do with the quality of my article? Read the arguments of MM (no peergroupreferences), and try to think about that. again a new argument. A ridiculous argument, because no. 1, 3, 6, 8, 12, 14 and 16 are peerreferences of respectd philosophers/scientists. I cannot help that you or MM does not know these people. That's the quality of your knowledge, but THERE ARE ENOUGH PEERREFERENCES. If you need more: I can give you more. But after that: what is at that time the new comment? I have the feeling that you all are talking after another. The There was a perfect text here, made with the help of a devoted American Wikipedian, but at the moment some Dutch Wiki's are involved: everything went wrong, without concrete arguments. there is something on with the Dutch and dr. kuypers. Maybe somebody hates him, because of their professional life? An ex-student, or something? It is really absurd, this whole story. For me it is unbeleivable that the American W are talking after the Dutch. i thought you have an indepent view, a more moral opinion, than these fellows.

Anyway; read the text and give me some advice, if you think there is something wrong. read the text of Hanneke Canters on W. You can see there how good my article on Dr. kuypers is.

Have a nice weekend.

regards, Joblf — Joblf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 14:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC).

This is an agressive campaign again dr. Kuypers. It is absolutely onlogical. When you read the text on W about Hanneke Canters, it is absolutely onlogical that anyone makes comment on my article about dr. Kuypers. There is a campaign from Holland against kuypers and it is a shame that at that time Americans are involved and talk after the Dutch. I thought everybody coulkd think authentic? That is strange, because the American Wiki's had no problems with my article. At a sudden, after the Dutch came in, there were problems. But the text is absolutely perfect as it is now. Again read the text on Hanneke Canters... Very strange that this text is good enough for you all.

Succes. Job — Joblf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 14:21, 14 July 2007 (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.