Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Adolf Hitler conspiracy theories


 * 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. Kusma's move suggestion may have merit if the article isn't expanded to include other theories. --BDD (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Death of Adolf Hitler conspiracy theories

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Uses only unreliable sources unfortunately; cf The Daily Mail. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  16:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep This is really just an article about Grey Wolf: The Escape of Adolf Hitler, which has received various reviews and coverage. Either rename to focus on the book, or add information on other conspiracy theories. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge into main Adolf Hitler article, assuming there is enough reliably sourced material; otherwise delete. I understand there is at least one other Hitler survival theory — in a just-published book asserting that he escaped to Brazil and died in 1984 — but even if we include material about this new theory, there isn't enough IMO for a full article.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom, but two excellent suggestions above. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  19:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:AFDFORMAT: "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line."  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, and of course I would not have done so- and did not do so until two editors made suggestions, both of which had elements I agreed with, and therefore had to comment because I was 'indicating otherwise'!!!! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  20:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Since (as best I can tell) you still support deletion of the article, I believe the best approach here would be for you to mark your latest comment as "Comment", instead of "Delete". This is more than obsessive nit-picking, BTW; I understand there are automated tools which track AfD's and tally !votes according to their initial boldface tags.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ...that's the second time I've heard 'votes' mentioned. Anyway, it wasn't my latest comment. It was my first. And only. Until it kept getting removed-! Cheers! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  20:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say "votes". I said "!votes" ("not-votes") — a common Wikipediaism which reminds us that discussions like this one are not really "votes" determining majority rule, but are part of a consensus-building process where policy-based rationales for positions are more important than mere numbers.  (See WP:NOTVOTE.)  And I called this your "latest" comment because I was counting your original proposal to delete the article as your first remark on the subject.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Why is The Daily Mail not a reliable source?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a tabloid. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  19:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So what? How does that make it unreliable?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There are an inordinate number of discussions in the WP:RS archives where the question of the reliability of tabloids is discussed- they are easy to find. Can I also point out that 'Anyone acting in good faith can contribute to the discussion.' Cheers. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  19:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So nothing written in policy then? As I thought, another weak deletion arguement.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail is a WP:RS for the fact that the book was published. The fact that a book is reported on or reviewed in a newspaper hardly adds to the authority of the book it is reporting on.  Whether the underlying book is or is not reliable must be judged by the quality of its sources.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge anything good to Death of Adolf Hitler. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the mutliple sources found by Colapeninsula, and WP:GNG.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Colapeninsula has found much more sources & so passes GNG. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  18:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - It cannot be merged as a section into the article Death of Adolf Hitler, as it was soundly decided to keep it out of there by consensus, see the talk page. That is what led to this separate article listed herein. It should not be included in the main article of Adolf Hitler, either. It would give WP:UNDUE weight and frankly I am sure it would be rejected. Therefore, given there are conspiracy theory pages on what happened to John F. Kennedy, Princess Diana and others, it should be allowed to stand alone. I agree it needs additions and some ce work, but again believe the page should be kept. Kierzek (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand - the content would not be accepted into main Hitler article as it would give undue weight to this one book (and because we already have a separate article about his death), and it's already been discussed via a recent request for comment and the consensus was not to include this fringe material in the article Death of Adolf Hitler. The article is off to a good start, and needs expansion with additional conspiracy theories. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If it was decided not to include the material in Death of Adolf Hitler then that means this page is a classic POV WP:CONTENTFORK and must be deleted. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. We have Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories, even though these subjects are not mentioned in the main article.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That was for BLP concerns. In any case, the Death of Adolf Hitler article must have some mention of the best-known conspiracy theories. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Abductive, it has already been decided, it is not going into the Death Of Adolf Hiter article; this for WP:UNDUE and WP:fringe reasons. Therefore the other opinions are what is on the table. Kierzek (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep There is also an other book Hunting Hitler: New Scientific Evidence That Hitler Escaped Nazi Germany #Xacobi  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xacobi (talk • contribs) 06:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge anything useful to Death of Adolf Hitler. This seems to be a classic POV fork.  For a long time, it was not totally clear what had happened to Hitler, because Russian soldiers buried or reburied his body, without his fate being officially logged.  After many years, the Russians responsible came forward and the matter was cleared up to the satisfaction of all but FRINGE commentators.  The controversy is probably noteworthy (hence notable), but is best dealt with in a NPOV manner in the death article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename to Grey Wolf: The Escape of Adolf Hitler, as the article is about that book, not about other conspiracy theories. —Kusma (t·c) 19:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.