Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Schure

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. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Matthew Schure

Matthew Schure (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)

Fails WP:BASIC Harsh (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• The longtime president of New York Institute of Technology (and subsequently of Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine )passes WP:ACADEMIC #6, so we could have an article about him. However, chunks of the current text of this very short article seem to be taken directly from his PCOM biography, raising possible WP:COPYVIO concerns. [1] --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Sources describing this person are not presented. As the nominator says, this person may pass WP:ACADEMIC if independently published sources verified the content of the article, but none are here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep unless copyvio. Passes WP:Prof#C6. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC).
• Speedy delete WP:CSD#G12. Unambiguous and foundational copyvio. I might change my opinion if someone actually takes the effort to replace the whole article with a new one using original text and proper sources, because the subject may well be notable as Arxiloxos notes, but there's nothing in this article worth saving. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Deleted comment
David Eppstein: Please provide a link to support your copyvio claim. All I can find on Google are Wikipedia forks. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Just before your recent edits to stub down the article, the version here used text largely or entirely taken from here. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I have removed the copyvio portions. It does not appear to qualify for G12 since there is still non-infringing text left. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY and WP:PROF#C6. Thanks, KoH and Arxiloxos! —David Eppstein (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - PROF#C6 is clear enough. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:40, 3 May 2014 (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.