Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emanuel Nobs


 * 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   speedy delete. Deleted under G7 at creator's request. Yunshui 雲 水 10:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Emanuel Nobs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a procedural nom. Apparently, when it was first created, there was an article about Nobs at the German wiki. However, that article has since been deleted and, if I understand the basis properly, because it is a hoax. Someone understandably tagged the article here as a hoax, but I declined it because I found some evidence he existed. However, even assuming he's real, that doesn't make him notable. Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I should add that the evidence I found he existed may not be reliable. It's not easy to look online for dead Swiss painters.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Here is the speedy deletion rationale used in de.wiki: "Begründung: Kein vernünftiger Beleg enthalten oder auffindbar. Mindestens irrelevant, wahrscheinlich Uralt-Fake, 2004 von IP eingestellt. Der einzige Beleg, den es seitdem gab, wurde erst 2010 ergänzt, besitzt als kommerzielle, zum Zweck der Generierung von Werbeeinnahmen betriebene Privatseite keinerlei Autorität und basiert wahrscheinlich selbst auf dem Wikipedia-Artikel." Machine translation: "Reason: included or discoverable No reasonable proof. At least irrelevant, probably age-old fake set of IP 2004. The only document that has since appeared, was only supplemented in 2010, has as commercial, operated for the purpose of generating advertising revenue private page no authority and likely based even on the Wikipedia article." Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Now there's a confusing rationale, at least in machine-speak. What I get out of it is that they didn't like the article even if the painter did exist. Thanks for the addition.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That was my standard deletion request at de.wp . Let's see if my human translation is better: "Reason: There are no valid sources included, and it's not possible to find any. If he's not a hoax, the artist isn't notable. The unsourced article was created by an IP in 2004, and the only reference wasn't added until 6 years later: a privately run, commercial web site that got its information from the same Wikipedia article to which it was added as a reference later." Since my rationale was confirmed at the de.wp deletions page, and Nobs couldn't be found in the sources where you'd normally find a notable artist, another user requested a speedy deletion that was quickly executed at de.wp. This is not the first hoax I have found, but the oldest one.--Sitacuisses (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Unsourced article that makes no assertion of notability. Just because someone is a painter does not mean they are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, per the valid reasoning at the German Wikipedia: from the little I understand without machine-translation, it says that no valid references that predate the article can be found. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 03:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete This certainly is a hoax, copied from de.wp without caring about valid sources. --Sitacuisses (talk) 06:06, 12 June 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.