Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etienne Kuypers/Readable

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. See main AFD page for details. --Coredesat 06:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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 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 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)

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.