Talk:Kurt Eberling Sr.

Hoax?
I suspect this article is a hoax.

The Philadelphia Inquirer article does not exist; other searches turn up nothing except paths that lead back to this article as the source.

I found it by editing the SpaghettiOs article, which was part of an attempt to add UK terms (spaghetti hoops turned up nothing, and you really don't want to know why I tried it.)

SimonTrew (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I found a "Reliable Source" for New Year's Eve in the Chicago Tribune, in an end-of-year quiz:


 * http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/dec/31/science/chi-meet-your-maker-1231dec31


 * But it doesn't really strike me as a reliable source, an end-of-year quiz. SimonTrew (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's a URL for the Philadelphia Inquirer article, doesn't look like a hoax.John Z (talk) 09:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately that is a URL to a "Find articles" site (for which I haven't subscription). Since the precis says exactly what the Wikipedia article says, this does not remove my suspicion that it is a hoax; at the very least, it is not (of itself) a Reliable Source since it is just sourcing another article, and I would guess it's the same now non-existent article: hitting "read the full article with a free trial" brings up a Page Not Found error. I did scour around for other reference, there are indeed some out there, you will find the text identical to that on Wikipedia. I did not claim that the Wikipedia article was the source of the hoax (it may have been copied from elsewhere) but, regardless, if it IS a hoax its propagation seems to be one basically by mirroring, with a few additions to blogs and comment articles where people have picked it up.


 * The style of the article seems to me unlikely for an obituary in a quality newspaper, but I am not the best to judge that.


 * Thanks for searching around; I mean this in that in the nicest possible way, if you'd have found another source (e.g. another obit that was different text) I'd have been pleased; it's bad enough being dead without someone erasing any claim to fame you had while you were alive. But if that's all you could find I think it tends to confirm, rather than refute, my suspicion, which is a good thing in itself. What I should have done is checked Kurt Eberling Jr. (for which Google gave one fairly highly ranked link) and see if I can work back from there, just in case (a) the two are/were father and son and (b) it throws any light on the matter. SimonTrew (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way I tried another route of checking if the name was a giveaway in German or Dutch but it is apparently meaningless, and a real surname.


 * I found Mr & Mrs Eberling, and Mr & Mrs Eberling Jr., listed as memorial donors in 2006 to La Salle College, Wyndmoor, Pennyslvania-- but that would seem to be unrelated (and is in tiny print and he wasn't dead then).

SimonTrew (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.daggy.name/cop/bkofdead/obits-ea.htm gives b. 17 June 1930 (not 1931) Aachen, Germany and d. 6 (not 10) March 2008 Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania. "came up with the idea of Spaghetti-Os". Do people, in obituaries, "Come up with" these things, not "invent" them? Seems a bit casual. At the time of his birth Aachen was within the Kingdom of Prussia until 1946, but this was itself within the German Empire and everybody called it Germany (don't remember people "fighting the prussians" in WW2). I was wondering if it was Dutch &mdash; it is right on the border and has switched hands quite a lot &mdash; but unfortunately from the point of view of my suspicions it was not. So, still inconclusive. SimonTrew (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * At worst I will go for prod with notability but I'd like to pin it down. I just would expect a bigger net presence than one (mirrored) obit of a rather offhand nature. I presume there are records of deaths etc but if it's like the UK I presume they're only available in person. SimonTrew (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * He comes up at this Social Security Death Index search site, (invaluable for tough cases) b  17 Jun 1930 - d  06 Mar 2008,  Huntingdon Valley, PA, so it looks less hoaxy to me.John Z (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, assuming it's the same one. But, that seems likely enough-- I'll amend the article with the correct dates. SimonTrew (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't know whether the subject's independently notable, but the obit from The Philadelphia Inquirer does not appear to be a hoax; it's still available at the Factiva archive. Here's the citation info for the obit from Factiva: Factiva doesn't have any other coverage of Kurt Eberling, aside from the Kevin Pang Chicago Tribune article. --Muchness (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's no use. We started with saying the Philly article didn't exist. Now you are citing without even a URL. It runs back to the same thing, i.e. WP. SimonTrew (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've tried to find it. It's no use if nobody from a worldwide source cannot find it. You then are primary source. SimonTrew (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Citations do not have to provide universally accessible URLs, they only have to provide all information necessary to identify the cited article (which the above reference does). The article is archived on Factiva, and anyone with access to Factiva can view and verify the article's contents. --Muchness (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A URL by definition is a universal resource locator.


 * The resources available at URLs are not by definition universally accessible; they may, for example, be accessible only to registered users (as is the case with archived Factiva articles). More to the point, citations do not have to provide URLs at all. --Muchness (talk) 04:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Leaving that aside my problem here is that the citation sent to me, from the Philadephia Enquirer, is totally inaccessible to me. If it's not accessible to me in any way (and it was kinda implied it was accessible from their website and I agree it need not be) it's not a reliable source, is it? What am I supposed to do, fly there and go to their archive? SimonTrew (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I can only restate what I said earlier, it isn't necessary for a reference source to be accessible to every editor, as long as the citation provides sufficient information for editors with the requisite access to verify the cited resource. Factiva is a reliable source for archives of published articles, and the obit is available in full at Factiva, which establishes that a) the obit was published by The Philadelphia Inquirer, and b) the information cited in the WP article is substantiated by the obit. --Muchness (talk) 04:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I accept everything you say in principle. A URL of course is "universal" in the sense that it is unique, not that a martian could find that resource.


 * The thing is here, this article has so few references that if others cannot find them, I can see it going not-notable etc. I and another editor (as you see from conversation above) had a struggle to establish hoax/not hoax).If then a reference is added that is not accessible, an to me looks like it goes back to the nonexistent Philly Inqurer article, you can undertand my suspicion of thinking that is not RS. I accept of course your good faith, but whatam I to make of it? Personally I can't see the point of listing a web source that is only accessible by subscrition etc, though I see your point that you might as well say the same about books, old magazines, etc. I don't know I am just at sixes and sevens over this one.


 * Thank you very much for your help and please do know, even if you disagree with me, I do respect your good faith and your best wishes to making it better. 22:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)