Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Philip Slier/1

Philip Slier

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisting, see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 19:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

This article was not on the original list of 223 Doug Coldwell GAs as part of DCGAR, but 62% of the content is DCs, so I am submitting it for review per the Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment drive of all DC content. Talk page, reviewer and nominator already notified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

To be resolved (from this version):

• Almost the entire article is cited to a non-independent sources; the one independent source is a book review, hence also relies on Slier & Slier
• Inaccessible sources that can't be checked for copyvio (and that don't seem to mention Slier at all, rather are WP:SYNTH)
  • Amersfoort 2010
  • Mueller 1999
• From page 25 of Slier & Slier both copy-paste and too-close paraphrasing copyright issues are found, so someone would need to rewrite the article. It appears that a broad application of presumptive deletion, reducing the article to a stub, is in order, unless someone intends to look for independent sources and check every piece of text for additional copyvio, as it is already apparent just from looking at page 25.
  Also, looking at page 11 of Slier, and the first version of the article, reveals that copyright problems are evident from the first version, and with the SYNTH and lack of independent sources, and copyright problems still in the article, it never gets better. G12 or copyright deletion may be appropriate for this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I have been unable to come up with any other reliable, independent sources. [1] [2] (the book is a translation) and there's not many internal links other than Lists and See Also. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• Speedy delist. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• Speedy delist Not even a question. Closing. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 19:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.