This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. (5 keep, 9 delete) - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 09:56 (UTC)

Delete Total vanity page created by Karlscherer3 about himself. Nothing very noteworthy about author. Even so, Wikipedia policy states not to create article about self, even if noteworthy. Contents could be copied to his user page. Currently, there he redirects visitors to article.— Frecklefoot | Talk 15:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy. If you're notable, let someone else write the article. It's a clear rule. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:01, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Changed to keep, I followed Frecklefoot, who apparently made a wrong assumption on who created the page. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:30, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete based on note below. and additional info on my talk. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:29, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Important note. the page was created by User:68.160.162.88, who has no other contributions. Using a simplified version of the text that Karl Scherer added (as User:202.37.72.100 at this edit) to Turing Machine. It is consequently likely that this user is Karl Scherer, in the "vanity page" ilk. ~~~~ 21:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• KeepThe article clearly establishes notability - wrote four books and numerous articles, invented a number of puzzles, solved various problems. --Lee Hunter 16:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - gets over 6500 Google hits - seems to be of some notable value. Gorrister 16:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I noticed some of the edits yesterday, appears to be a relatively new user (first edit 18 May 2005, quite a few since then) who may be unfamiliar with policy. Very cooperative and open to becoming better informed of policy. (I'm not the one to inform, perhaps someone with more knowledge can help?) The page was created in 2003 by an ip from austrailia, so I don't believe he made it himself. I added the "see [article]" to his user page, it was empty before. Slike2 20:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The article notes that Scherer lives in New Zealand, which may explain the Australian IP address (though it may be a coincidence). AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:31, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He seems notable. As far as Mgm's comment, it appears that an article on Scherer existed for over a year an half and was done by someone other than Scherer (judging by the content). If Scherer himself then expands it with acceptable content, that seems not only acceptable but desireable. Who should know more details than the subject himself? DS1953 00:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I assumed Frecklefoot checked who created the page, but it appears he was mistaking. Changed my vote accordingly. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:30, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable mathematician. Abstain JamesBurns 06:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy or Delete. The entire article has been typed by Karl Scherer except one single paragraph (the bit about the Turing machine). I believe we need to hold a firm line against self-promotion. Also note that the books are self-published, and the article has links to where you can buy them from his site. I can't remember ever seeing such a blatant attempt to use Wikipedia for financial gain. Niteowlneils 01:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) Mr. Scherer has edited from at least 5 IPs that I have found so far, so there is no way to know that he isn't the sole contributor to the article. Regardless, the total notability claims are, building a Turing machine (unverifiable), having a handful of articles published in a 'math puzzles' magazine, and self-publishing content in a variety of media; even combined that doesn't seem that notable, especially to waive the 'no self-promotion' policy. Niteowlneils 17:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yikes, I didn't notice that. I've de-linked the books and the DVD per Wikipedia:External links, but I left the link to his website alone. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 01:25, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

The part about building a Turing machine that's now in a German museum doesn't seem verifiable via any site that isn't an 'any user can contribute' site--of the 45 displayed hits for "karl Scherer" turing -wikipédia -wikipedia, the only ones (other than his) that make that claim are Wikipedia mirrors and a few forums. (Also, FWIW, he has also added links to his site from at least seven other articles). Niteowlneils 05:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely not possible for him to have created a Turing machine. If he had then he would have won a very large prize indeed. And no-one would bother competing for it anymore, as it would already have been won. It is a theoretical device. ~~~~ 10:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Noteable figure but author should be warned about vanity pages Billhpike 01:17, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete - I cahnged my mind after reading other's comments Billhpike 00:05, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice total advertising & vanity spam. See user's other contributions [1]. ~~~~ 10:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Important comment the statement that Karl Scherer created a real turing machine, on the Turing Machine article, was originally added by User:202.37.72.100 (contributions: [2]), who also added spam links to "zillions of games" in the same edit ([3], i.e. he is the same as User:Karlscherer3. ~~~~ 10:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is one of 5 IPs (with three different numbers before the first dot) the same user has edited under. Niteowlneils 17:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Alert Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Karlscherer3 ~~~~ 11:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • 6500 Google hits means I vote to keep. If there was no article here about someone who finds a cure for a major disease, and they came along and wrote it themselves, it would be stupid to delete it. Granted, that's a very exaggerated case, but this person is at least somewhat notable, and the page deserves npov, not hostile delete. Slike2 20:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • If you type in the more sensible attempt at googling "Karl Scherer" -wikipedia you will get only about 847, most of which are his own websites, or message boards and forums to which he has contributed, so hardly count. If you are going to use google to support a case, please use it carefully. ~~~~ 20:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Good point, Delete pending verification of sufficient notability.
• Delete. If any of that were verifiable, it would be a pretty impressive resume. But as it stands, it's simply vanity and self-promotion.
• Delete or userfy. I'm not saying there shouldn't article about him (though I'm not yet comfortable saying there should either), just that this isn't it. --W(t) 23:06, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• Pause vfd pending verification by the university of the building of a mechanical turning machine. Slike2 17:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Continue vfd. If the university unexpectedly verifies it, then the article can always be re-created. We don't normally have the attitude "well, the evidence points against it, but we could always assume it is notable unless proven otherwise", if we did, there would be many many more articles in Wikipedia. Also, if it was

(a) true

(b) noteworthy

then why was it Karl Scherer himself who added the info. Wikipedia:No original research

~~~~ 23:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No problems here. It's gonna be moved to his user page anyway, so it can be pasted back when it gets verified. Slike2 01:10, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am sure, since you are not Karl Scherer, his having no evidence to back up his own claims, you must have meant if rather than when, and made a typing error. ~~~~ 28 June 2005 07:19 (UTC)

I meant exactly what I wrote, there is no need to correct me. I'm assuming that it can be verified. And even without that, my use of when is completely appropriate, see def 2. It would have been much easier and more honest for you to say "well I think you're wrong, this will not [note the bold] be verified". Slike2 28 June 2005 11:33 (UTC)

That is not my point. ~~~~ 28 June 2005 19:25 (UTC)

N.b. there is a formal policy, and many precedents, against an article being recreated in any namespace (including User space) in the event of a successful formal VfD. It would however be likely that it is interpreted in this case loosely enough to allow Karl Scherer to add information he considers relevant to Wikipedian's interactions with him onto his user page, even if it is information contained in the article that was VfD'd. ~~~~ 28 June 2005 19:29 (UTC)

• Delete original research--nixie 23:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nixie--Scimitar 28 June 2005 14:42 (UTC)
• Delete vanity--Porturology 28 June 2005 18:52 (UTC)
• When I read "He discovered ^{[dubious – discuss]} a way to dissect an equilateral triangle into three similar polygons such that exactly two pieces have the same size; MAT I News, Vol 7(2)." on the page, I expected that the talk page would have some information about that alleged discovery, possibly mentioning earlier results that invalidate it, or something. Instead, there's just a blanket condemnation from -Ril-. What are the arguments against the claim that he discovered such a dissection? If there are no arguments against it, let's remove the dubious tag. Factitious June 28, 2005 21:56 (UTC)
• Keep. If all the disputed statements were removed, the article would still establish notability. As mentioned above, I haven't seen arguments against any of the allegedly disputed statements, except for the Turing machine one. Factitious June 28, 2005 21:56 (UTC)
  • Can an article establish its own notability in this manner? (link?) If it can, then I agree with your statements for the sake of including what is very likely true, my vote would be as it was originally, keep. Slike2 28 June 2005 22:14 (UTC)
    • No it can't. Wikipedia:No original research. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that the Turing Machine claim is valid, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that any other claim is valid. And for the subject of the article to be the provider of its content is a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. I seriously doubt that anyone who is not Karl Scherer or a close associate/friend of his, would ever produce any of the information in this article, unless they had read this one first. (N.b. I have voted above) 28 June 2005 22:28 (UTC)
• Delete. He doesn't appear to be notable as a mathematician, or recreational mathematician. 4 articles in the Journal of Recreational Mathematics, 1 in the American Math Monthly: that's fairly typical for a postdoc / assistant professor trying to get a tenure-track position. 4 books is somewhat impressive, if they were successful. Were they? dbenbenn | talk 28 June 2005 23:54 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability is irrelevant in this case. Wikipedia:No original research Psora 29 June 2005 00:38 (UTC)
• Comment. This has been on VfD since 21st, i.e. over the 5 day standard period. The current state of votes by my reckoning is 1 Abstain, 5 Keep, 12 Delete. Making a clear 2/3 majority for delete. Is there any reason this is still on VfD? ~~~~ 29 June 2005 21:23 (UTC)
  • Discussions typically sit in limbo for a period of time since there's such a large backlog of closed discussions. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL June 29, 2005 21:48 (UTC)
    • So this is formally closed now, but in limbo?~~~~ 29 June 2005 23:12 (UTC)
      • No, it's open until someone gets around to closing it. --Carnildo 29 June 2005 23:47 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.