Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hubert Blaine Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff Sr.


 * 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. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Partofthemachine (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hubert Blaine Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff Sr.
AfDs for this article:
 * Articles for deletion/Adolph Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenberdorf
 * Articles for deletion/Wolfe+585, Senior
 * Articles for deletion/Wolfe+585, Senior (2nd nomination)
 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable person who adopted an absurdly long name purely as a publicity stunt. This is clearly not a natural surname anybody would have, its just the plot of Battlestar Galactica poorly translated into German. The Guinness Book of World Records is the primary source the article relies on, and is not considered to be a reliable source for Wikipedia.

EDIT: I am sorry I poorly formatted the AfD, I'm a new editor and made some mistakes. Valethske (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Whatever his motivations, he did become notable for his name. Whether it was eccentricity, publicity, a way to annoy the authorities or whatever doesn't matter. The sources are sufficient to show notability and sustain a short biography. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment This AfD seems to be pretty messed up. The article is called Hubert Blaine Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff Sr. not Wolfe+585, Senior, which is a redirect. The AfD is called "4th" when it is the third AfD on this article and the article title is missing. I am not sure how easy (or worthwhile) this would be to fix. I'm not going to risk making an even bigger mess by trying. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the mess. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep – opinions on the subject's intentions are far from an actual deletion rationale. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The nomination claims the person is non-notable. While you may disagree, I see enough of a reason for deletion to avoid a speedy keep. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 5.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 01:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keepnatural born name, no reason for deletion of this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2crzppul (talk • contribs) 05:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorf is legit, but the nonsense about spaceships and colonisation of other planets was clearly bolted on afterwards simply to guarantee a place in the Guinness Book of World Records. Valethske (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope you don’t delete the article on Wolfe­schlegel­stein­hausen­berger­dorff. It answered a question I had this morning and I found it very interesting. Please reconsider. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:5240:9293:C954:F15E:2A14:B1C1 (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep and SNOW close Per above. Proponents of deletion have not provided sufficient argument against the subject's notability, for which the article has good cause to cover.  Aeromachinator   (talk to me here)  09:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * According to Reliable sources/Perennial sources there is no consensus that Guinness World Records is a reliable source. There are very few references to this gentleman unconnected to his appearance in the Guinness Book of World Records and basically no irrefutable proofs that the science fiction short story version of his name even existed before he attempted to gain publicity. Guinness World Records eventually removed him from subsequent editions, probably because they worked out it was a hoax. Valethske (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If somebody is in the Guinness World Records then that is not notability in itself but if a person becomes notable for a reason tied to their being in the Guinness World Records, i.e. Reliable Sources recognise that person for it and cover them, then that is notability. People can become genuinely notable, even become major celebrities, for all sorts of strange and/or silly reasons and this is very far from being the worst of them. As I said before, this guy is notable. He's not top-tier notable, and I wouldn't want to see the article become extravagant, but he is notable enough for a short biography. DanielRigal (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There are indeed all manner of unusual Guinness World Record holders notable enough to have Wikipedia articles (examples I can think of off the top of my head are Michel Lotito and Lucky Diamond Rich), but some readily verifiable and notable (yet unusual) record holders do not have Wikipedia articles, such as Ram Singh, a Bollywood actor who is the owner of the world's longest moustache. I would argue Singh is far more notable than Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff because he is more verifiable and has actually had a documented career worthy of inclusion (for example he appeared in Octopussy and many Indian films). All three of the record holders I've mentioned have been entertainers with unusual acts or attributes, whereas Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff was just an otherwise non-notable man with an unusual penchant for continually adding words to his surname until it was a mini space opera. Valethske (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. Sources are reasonably sufficient to show notability, even if nonsensically acquired. I would not oppose moving to Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff and refactoring into an article on the surname for which the nameholder is a detail. BD2412  T 12:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If the article is to be retained at all (which I'm not convinced of) the absurdly long versions should at least be presented with a degree of skepticism due to the fact that they all tell a short science fiction story about ancient astronauts. The article currently does not even remark on the nature of the name. 92.12.140.5 (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I am unsure about some of this, but it seems to be overall well sourced, just a bit silly. Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My main issue is that it seems to uncritically accept the man's claims that the hundreds of characters long science fiction version of his name is his "real" name, despite only the 35 character appearing anywhere remotely official. Almost all of the sources go right back to either himself, people who knew him or the Guinness Book of World Records. I wouldn't be nearly so skeptical if there was any solid evidence of any sort that anything longer than the 35-character name existed before the 1960s. 92.12.140.5 (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not the place to discuss this, this is about notability, not verifiability. Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Nominator's comment: I support deleting this article because the subject genuinely does not appear to be notable except as a piece of trivia. As I mentioned earlier, many unusual Guinness World Record holders are notable for reasons other than appearing in Guinness World Records, whereas this man appears not to be particularly notable other than using (whether by birth or adoption) an unusual name. Valethske (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That is exactly why it would make sense to move this to Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff, and make the article about the surname. BD2412  T 21:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be okay with that.
 * That's a point, is there any evidence at all that anybody except Wolfe Sr. ever used the very long science fiction variant? If neither his son nor his father did then it would be strong evidence that the exceedingly long and poorly attested version originated and died with this single individual.
 * Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff is unusually long, but it does appear to be a legitimate and grammatically correct German compound and does not contain strange references to spacecraft or extraterrestrials. Valethske (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per above.  James  ( T •  C ) • : • 02:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep I am seeing sufficient coverage that I’m comfortable there’s in depth and continuing coverage. Yeah, it’s a strange thing to be notable for, but I see enough here to justify it. Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.