Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolf Weissmann


 * 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   delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Adolf Weissmann

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article seems to be about some philosopher, but more likely it is about some fictional character (judging by his comparison with Jára Cimrman). I think it does not fulfill our notability criteria. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for letting me know. I created this page about Weissmann because I studied him last semester at University on my course on Contemporary Philosophy. I read works by him as well of Schweinsteiger and Nuelend. I did not include myself that mention to Jára Cimrman, nor did I know who he was (or rather apparently wasn't) until it was included on the article. I can provide sources and I ask this page not to be deleted. Rodrigomvaz
 * Sorry, but the info about Jára Cimrman was in the original version of the article, which was written by you, and you also added it to the article about Jára Cimrman. However, if you think the article should be kept, it is necessary to add reliable sources that would prove Weissman's notability and that would help to verify the information in the article. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

*Comment - The German language article appears to be better sourced: "https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Wei%C3%9Fmann". I suggest somebody who is adept at translation works at integrating content from it. That appears to be a different Adolf, I can't find any sources myself --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree, that is somebody different. Though I cannot speak German, I understood that German Wikipedia Weissmann was born in 1873, while "our" Weisman was born in 1898. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my German is pretty poor but I thought it might have been him as the words critic and music came up in the lede. However, having scanned it a little closer, I noticed the discrepancy in birth dates too --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Quite a few of this other Adolf's books come up when his name is searched. If anything he should have an article instead --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - If this article is about a fictionalised writer, and I can't find anything on him on JSTOR or Google Books, then the fact that there is a music critic with the same name could be a conscious effort in order to further mislead those looking for sources --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy deletion - No sources - I agree that this is most likely a fictional person --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  |  16:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  |  16:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * delete, No sources to be found. Looks like a hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete It is high time we delete all articles lacking sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:V. I disagree with John Pack Lambert re unsourced articles in general (there are many on notable topics, left over from days when we were lax about such things) but unsourceable articles are a different matter. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Speed delete No doubt this is a hoax article. The last paragraph is deliberate nonsense.  No sources are not a surprise for this hoax. I am One of Many (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.