Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. du P. Scholtz

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 keep and move to Johannes du Plessis Scholtz. Seraphimblade 04:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] J. du P. Scholtz

J. du P. Scholtz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Page was created in one edit by a user with no other contributions. Google returns no results for this page, but it seems pretty likely to me that this article is a copyright violation, and thus requires a complete rewrite, not a quixotic wikification. Salad Days 03:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Bad faith nomination. Assumes copyright with no proof. Assumes new user has bad intentions instead of good. Article does not clearly show notibility but author has a lot of published works and some are used in teaching of philsology so that makes him notible enough.--Dacium 04:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikiforensics! should be added to Wikilawyering as a profession. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That doesn't seem like a vote or an argument. --Dhartung | Talk 20:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep unless evidence supporting nominator's concerns can be provided. A two-minute search confirms the salient points of the article, and I can find no English-language source with any of the distinctive phrases used here. It is conceivable, I suppose, that this is translated from a pre-existing Dutch source, but in the absense of evidence, I think it best to assume good faith that even a new user might have taken the time to prepare an article in an off-wiki text editor rather than be content with a stub. It might be worth considering whether this should be moved to Johannes du Plessis Scholtz, however. And some references would be nice, but are by no means difficult to locate (although many are in Dutch). Serpent's Choice 14:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. If the author prepared his or her text offline and started the article by cutting and pasting it, this is not grounds for deletion. Wiki markup is not all that complicated. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep I didn't start the article, but I did made some copyedits to this page in response to the AfD, to partially improve the formatting and provide a more encyclopedic tone. I thought the article was worth the trouble. It is presumably these edits to which the nominator is referring. I don't think improving potentially worthy articles is quixotic. This was originally a prod., deprodded by someone else. DGG 17:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as "first to use these techniques" and "influenced the world of South African linguistics" seems like a notability claim (one that should be in the intro), but we should find something to back that up. --Dhartung | Talk 20:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but Move per Serpent's Choice. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rename No evidence of copyright infringement yet. Notable subject but the article title needs a rename. Too many initials. User:Dimadick
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.