Template:Did you know nominations/Matthew C. Whitaker

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (blab) @ 16:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Matthew C. Whitaker

(

)

... that a professor at Arizona State has been demoted for publishing books plagiarized from Wikipedia?

Created by E.M.Gregory (talk). Self-nominated at 10:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC).

This violates Rule 4a: "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals... should be avoided." Someone with experience in BLPs needs to take a look at this. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

ALT1: ... that historian Matthew C. Whitaker is credited with bringing renewed attention to the issue of technology-enabled plagiarism? (I spent a lot of time reading and contemplating this article. This is the most positive(-sounding) hook I could find. Oh, and I fixed a few typos but there are still more to fix and some formatting issues (missing italics, etc.) as well.) - Dravecky (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Article has been nominated for deletion at AfD; DYK nomination is on hold for until the AfD has been resolved. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not just the hook. Nearly all of the article itself is on the controversies and says very little about any other work that may make him notable. I'm not a BLP expert but unless the article is significantly rewritten I still think it will fail Rule 4a. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

as per above Victuallers (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: result of AfD was "keep". Article has undergone significant edits since the above, but is currently unstable. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I've just re-read this article twice and even in its current state there's so little positive to say about this person that every potential hook I can come up with is along the lines of "... that Lee Harvey Oswald is surprisingly accurate with a rifle?" and that's just not acceptable for a biography of a living person. - Dravecky (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)