Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uwe Kils (2nd nomination)

Add links
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. Tan | 39 15:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uwe Kils[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Uwe Kils (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-written vanity page; don't see how this meets WP:PROF. Reads more like an academic CV, no indication that this individual is particularly notable within their field. See also this afd. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – this article has been the subject of an earlier AfD, and the result was "keep". The author, despite his somewhat irritating self promotional tendencies, is in fact notable, as more careful searches establish. He is also the inventor of the EcoSCOPE. The article needs rewriting to remove the "vanity", but this is not a place to punish such behaviour with an inappropriate deletion. --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although he is perhaps more notable as an innovator and photographer than as an academic, Google Scholar nonetheless credits one of his papers with 114 citations. He is well represented in Google Books.--Geronimo20 (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not impressed by the quality of the previous discussion. The deletes are mostly "vanity" and "non-notable" without any elaboration and the keeps are mostly "verifiable" and "notable" without any elaboration. It looks more like a vote than a discussion. I think that, rather than relying on precedent, we should come to a fresh consensus on whether he passes WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree that the previous discussion was from an earlier time (it was a VfD) and should probably be ignored. Also agree that the subject is a shameless self promoter. He probably should be encouraged not to edit his own article or articles where a COI would be too great of a temptation for him. However, regarding "subject of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources" this the biography clearly meets. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep on basis of GS as much of the self-promotion has been pruned. Delete on further consideration. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment Can someone point out an example of third party reliable source coverage? Nearly all of the references are to papers written by Kils. The prizes/awards may be of note, but I'm not sure how notable these particular awards are. I do know that research awards are not uncommon. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you can cut it down to 5 lines no picture. it would be nice if the categories stay.

best greetings and good luck to wikipedia, which is the greatest on the planet (see my endorsements on user kils, my gallery there and my gallery on commons user uwe kils
http://web.archive.org/web/20010803121250/krill.rutgers.edu/uwe/
Professor Dr. habil. habil. uwe kils
user kils Uwe Kils
  • Strong Keep - kils was a great professor, worked all over the world, has many international recognized prizes, cared for the week, donated millions, was an inventer and is still one of the most gifted photographers and filmmaker of the planet, just cut the article down as much as you like. http://filaman.uni-kiel.de/photos/PicturesSummary.php?ID=300&what=larvegg this image uwe also donated to wikipedia Vikings (talk)
Commment Third party reliable sources supporting these statements? OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Vikings is "a group of professors, teachers, former students, parents, children and friends from professor uwe kils." Xxanthippe (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The Visual Side of Wikipedia
Fernanda B. Viégas
Visual Communication Lab, IBM Research
viegasf@us.ibm.com
http://www.research.ibm.com/visual/papers/viegas_hicss_visual_wikipedia.pdf
"

This is where Uwe Kils comes in. Dr. Kils is an associate professor of planktology in the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, at Rutgers University. A few years ago, he was asked to donate one of his images of plankton to Wikipedia. He liked the project so much that he decided to donate over two hundred of his scientific images to the encyclopedia [10]. Like Dr. Kils, there are thousands of Wikipedia users around the world that contribute images to the encyclopedia.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Tomopteriskils.jpg

Figure 1: Image of a Tomopterus, by Prof. Uwe Kils. Photograph donated to Wikipedia by the author. similar to traditional, printed sources such as the expert-created Columbia Encyclopedia, in terms of formality and language standardization. They attribute this phenomenon to the high degree of post-production editorial control afforded by Wikipedia—for instance, the ability to easily edit other’s entries."

some editor even took off his image from fisheries biology before the vote was done. uwe and his photographers and models like mikki uploaded over 8000 photographs and donated over 40 000 dollars. uwe is extreme angry, such a treatment he has never experienced in his whole life. beeing banned for a week only for asking to put the right author tags on six of our high resolution photographs. copyright violation is a crime, also in the usa. he had to fight with editors who did not disclose their name nor education nor books nor publicatiions. uwe wrote over 300 publications 30 books, raised 500 students, all but dr. thethmeier, dr. waller live outside germany and are millionaires, most billionaires and over 20 000 over internet. uwes secretary chandra will email you soon. have a nice day user vikings Vikings (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC) — Vikings (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Strong Keep - at the age of 18 he studied informatics, at 19 he wrote three image programs, one for realtors, one for stockbrokers, one for physicians. he advertised them in manhattan and dubai. they sold over 200 000 times. after this year he returned a rich men and could have stopped working.. his dream was to study marine biology. he travelled to all famous institutes. kiel germany was that time the best and biggest. at 28 he was invited to participate in an antarctic expedition and take the photo documentation. at age 29 he got his dr. title with "summa cum laude" and "opus eximium". here is his original dr. degree http://uwekils.com/kils15.jpg a few days later his dissertation was translated by the international centre of antarctic research at texas a & m university by professor sayed elsayed and printed as book. it found mention as book review in scar and was sold out all over the world in 5 months.uwe did not give away the copyright so he can serve it to poor schools in the 3rd world. His incredible (over 40 000) photographs found mention in an article about wikipedia http://www.research.ibm.com/visual/papers/viegas_hicss_visual_wikipedia.pdf
and in SCIENCE http://ecoscope.com/science/index.htm. here is his virtual microscope http://ecoscope.com/cybermic/index.htm

here is a publication http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/126/m126p001.pdf

responsible for this page
professor sylvia klein
user sylvia klein
Sylvia klein (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC) — Sylvia klein (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep So far as I can see from the article he is of note. Rather more so than the Assistant Professors of Economics (appointed in 2007) and so on that we get. This looks like achievement, not puff. Can I just suggest that the supporters keep their contributions here well below dissertation length - if they're short and sharp more people will read them. And someone can take care of that 'citation needed', I hope. Peridon (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong Keep

all is true and reliable. just check the sources or contact professor Dr Dr. h.c. gotthilf hempel or shaw distinguished professor dr. rudi strickler or the white house Oceanographer (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC) — Oceanographer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • strong Keep

His students love him: "The teacher was excellent, funny + entertaining as well as informative + intellectual - the computer Interaction!", " This was the best class I've taken at RUTGERS so far.", "I enjoyed the enthusiasm with with Uwe gave the lectures. Once Uwe started his lectures, three hours went by in five minutes.", "This was my favourite course of my 3 years at RUTGERS.", "Dr. Kils encouraged students to become acquainted with other aspects of science - photography and computers. When he saw a weakness in the class's knowledge, he tried to fill it. He was also very pleasant personally - and a pleasure to greet every Friday morning", "I don't think I could be so nice and positive on such a regular basis".

It is the dream of any scientist to have her name in NATURE or SCIENCE. His was in both.

His students are allowed to publish without his name on. All his publications are sold out.

He programmed the virtual microscope. he has own web servers and does not need space on wikipedia, see FOTO KILS http://web.archive.org/web/20001019164813/www.ecoscope.com/fotokils.htm and on his university servers http://web.archive.org/web/20010803121250/krill.rutgers.edu/uwe/

have a nice day

Freydis 10:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC) — Freydis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • strong Keep

hallo wikipedia - i am a former student of professor kils. Hisfaculty respect him: "Dr. Kils is possibly Europe’s most outstanding young marine scientist. Members of the Department of Marine and Coastal Sciences with experience in oceanography regard him as one of the world’s most innovative individuals working in this field", "Kils’ contribution to this area is acknowledged as the best anywhere". every friday he worked with handicapped students in the cape may high-school. his photographers and he gave over 8 000 imagees to wikipedia, many in high resolution. just read the publication above. he has over 200 photography prizes from all over the planet. just go to ecoscope.com and click on teacher, then "space". have a wonderful day on the beach

Mikki joergensen (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC) — Mikki joergensen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


  • strong Keep

hallo, here is katharina r. i graduated from professor dr. dr. dr. habil. habil. uwe kils´´ elite university in germany and nyny. good luck Katharina r (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC) — Katharina r (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Note to closing admin The WP:SPA-tagged accounts all appear to be affiliated with the professor, most have few edits outside of userspace, and many have been inactive since 2005, suggesting that they were recently recruited. Most of the arguments presented simply regurgitate the article; I see very little that actually address WP:PROF. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep on the basis of having developed a major scientific facility. the actual citation counts are not high (5 papers, counts 34, 29, 26, 16, 5, 1, but the work is nevertheless important as judged by the textbook and other references which do not show up there.. The irrelevant arguments of some of the SPAs above should of course be disregarded, but we shouldn't allow their misjudged support to affect the decision in a negative way, either. ` DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you missed another paper with 115 citations --Geronimo20 (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to visiting posters who don't post anything much It is irrelevant how good you think he is, or what his class thought, or how nice his cat is, etc. What you need to be doing is producing references from independent third party sources about what he's done. Comments about 'buying Wikipedia' will only damage your cause. Not MY cause. I !voted Keep based on my reading of the article, etc. Remarks like that could induce the 'real' supporters to desert. I say 'real' meaning those who are regular contributors to Wikipedia rather than those who appear out of the blue and get hot under the collar instead of addressing the problem in a proper manner. If you don't like the way Wikipedia works, start your own. Until then, it's our ball and our rules. If there's evidence, FIND IT and put it on the table. Personal opinions are NOT evidence. Self-published stuff is not evidence. Editable sources (including Wikipedia itself) are not evidence. If you have queries, ask an admin or someone with long and regular service here. If you can't do this, then keep quiet. The more unverifiable noise that appears on an AfD page, the greater the liklihood of deletion - with possible salting to prevent a recurrence. Peridon (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded: If you look over the user pages, there's literally a collective web of how they all relate. Then there are very disturbing things like User:Viking, 2 clicks later, I'm staring at this frightful topic from ages ago. No longer active, but scary that apparently no one cared about these things 5+ years ago. Basic searching get you here. If that's something I ran into in less than 5 minutes of backwards links from one self-admitted colleague in this discussion, I'm shaken and too conflict to offer a stance below. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. change to No Opinion, based on a COI of this matter after starting to look at a massive blanketing effort by some here and many other related users. This marks a good case of why and where policy on academic professionals is being looked over. All that personal bio info and the images? Meaningless. Written a lot of books? Not automatically enough. SPR/OR as lone source? Not great, but he gets some mentions in participation of notable scientific projects. Those being the absolute key to notability and those mentions aren't in any need of debate since those events already have their own articles. Vanity? Meh. Likely, at least a bit, and using your own book as for citations is no good at all, but the keep is based on the professional work and not anything stated about the man whatsoever. It could be anyone's name whatsoever on the article who had the same work history and it'd be the same. This should be an ar article about a person who accidentally happened to be a participant in notable matters, not about why or how this a person came to be in those events. May want to trim out some of that biography content. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stricken, with my reason above ...Oh, and I'm taking it we're looking past posters nearly/arguably outing themselves and one another above? ♪ daTheisen(talk)

Notice: This discussion has been posted at WP:ANI for review and discussion related to suspect opinions offered in this discussion. The current active link is right here. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per DGG. How often one is cited is surely relevant. As for the good doktor's student and colleagues, it is shocking to see how undervalued reading skills are. Character references and resumes were never asked for; simple third-party sources were. Drmies (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep one the basis of his scholarly achievements and research, whose citaion is well documented here. Influential scientists, regardless of how obnoxiously self-aggrandizing they are, if their actual influence within their field can be documented, are notable. As you can tell, I find his begging for us to keep his article as a legacy to his family nauseating, self-serving and gross, his claims that all the money he gave should afford him special treatment somewhere between laughable and unethical, and all his behavior on wikipedia a colossal waste of time and AGF, to all be reasons to personally vote delete, if only for self-satisfying vindictiveness. However, on the basis of pollicy, I think his notability is well established. ThuranX (talk) 06:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.D.: I notice that he also got a EB-1 visa [1] although I can't get a reliable source for that, it seems that he also got a "Heisenberg prize". I suppose that he means the Heisenberg Programme [2], either a fellowship or a professorship. By the way, those are two red links which should have stubs created on them. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uwe_Kils_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1180430764"