Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johann Berke Schluter

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Johann Berke Schluter
The page is a hoax created by interns at the Solar and Astrophysics department of the Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center User: 22:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment a google search for "Johann Berke Schluter" returns two results: the wikipedia article and a wiki mirror. --TheMidnighters 22:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar at all with the history of engineering but I'd wager that if such a man as Schluter had existed, led the way in some areas of engineering design, had helped design the Titanic and had been blamed in part for its sinking, then at least one webpage other than wikipedia would mention his name. I wish the nominator could provide more information and make things clearer (before nominating the article he/she blanked it and replaced it with a similar claim) as to how they came to realize who was behind this article. So based only on the virtually nonexistent google results in comparison to the hyperbolic language/claims made in the article I'll vote delete. --TheMidnighters 23:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

comment I'd like to apologize for the way I've been conducting this affair. I had wished to remain anonymous, but from the discussion and further reading of the wikipedia policies makes it clear that I shouldn't. I attempted to sign up, then realized I had already signed up a long time ago. Anyway, a 90% efficient heat engine is far beyond anything that has ever been created. Additionally, the creators of this article, who I know offline, were bragging about the realistic nature of their hoax, but I don't have a way of proving that to you.General Nuke Em
 * Delete unverified/apparent hoax. -- Etacar11   00:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for bringing it to VFD and clearing it up. --TheMidnighters 07:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Hoax. --Apyule 05:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete hoax. N (t/c) 07:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; fails Google test, and lack of references seems to support hoax claim. --Alan Au 07:15, 10 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.