Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johann Pfeffer


 * 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 deleted as G5. Ruslik_ Zero 15:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Johann Pfeffer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Short story: is this a WP:HOAX? Now, for a longer story (rationale). It seems this article has been created by a global-ban evading editor (see meta:Requests_for_comment/Global_ban_request_for_Messina). I saw an earlier version of this article (see Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion) and it looked good, however when I started looking into the references I had trouble verifying that this is not a WP:HOAX. Unfortunately, the first article got deleted before I was able to finish the research, and the prior AfD (Articles for deletion/Jan Pfeffer started by User:Schulhofpassage)) got speedy closed before anyone could look into the issue. The article has since been restored, and I once again have trouble verifying the refs, or in fact - just as before - that the subject exists at all. Still, the meta global block does not mention problems with editor's article, instead focusing on their disruptive behavior and attitude. Leaving aside my concerns about G5, I would like to use this article to see whether that user creates hoaxes or whether his content is helpful for this project (and if so, I'll try to investigate his past contributions). However, as I noted earlier, I am having major trouble verifying whether this subject even exists: the name and date of births don't seem to produce results except wiki forks and low quality pages (like provincial Polish government history pages which may well be affected by WP:CITEGENESIS). Further, a number of presumably print bibliographical references cited seem not to exist (or are badly malformed). For example, the latest version of the article is seemingly based on "nton Ulbrich: Johannes Pfeffer. The altar in the protestant Kumehnen Church . in: Anton Ulbrich: History of sculpture in East Prussia from the 16th century to around 1870 (Geschichte der Bildhauerkunst in Ostpreußen vom Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts bis gegen 1870.), Königsberg 1926–1929, p. 249-270" but I can't verify such a source exists in the linked database; it exists in Google Books but is not digitized. Google Book search for "Johann Pfeffer" Königsberg produces results in German I cannot analyze; my searchers for English sources using keywords such as ""Johann Pfeffer" sculptor" give nothing, and neither do Polish. While I cannot see the now-deleted article at Jan Pfeffer, I remember that one of the sources cited was "Słownik artystów polskich i obcych w Polsce działających (zmarłych przed 1966 r.)" from 1986, but it is a multi-part work, and the 1986 edition covers surnames with letters Kl-La. The correct one which may cover the subject is the Pe-Po one from. Sadly, none of my local libraries has a copy of either, and they are not digitized; the subject is also not listed in User:Piotrus/List of Poles/Pawlewski-Poblocki (at least, not under surname Pfeffer). Again, errors like this suggest this may be a hoax, but I'd like to hear from someone who can look into German sources here, which seem to be the most likely to have something on the subject. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Johann Pfeffer  is in Thieme-Becker see http://www.degruyter.com/databasecontent?dbid=akl&dbsource=%2Fdb%2Fakl and http://www.adk.de/de/archiv/bibliothek/LD_AKL.htm
 * Johannes Pfeffer is in Anton Ulbrich: Geschichte der Bildhauerkunst in Ostpreußen vom Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts bis gegen 1870. digital see http://www.eromm.org/use_eromm-eromm_search?term=ulbrich+bildhauerkunst
 * the polish name of Johannes Pfeffer is Jana Pfeffera z Królewca :
 * https://www.google.de/?gws_rd=ssl#q=%22Jana+Pfeffera+z+Kr%C3%B3lewca+%22
 * https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ko%C5%9Bci%C3%B3%C5%82_pw._Matki_Boskiej_Szkaplerznej_w_Rodnowie ** https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bukowiec_(powiat_bartoszycki)
 * http://diec.mazurska.luteranie.pl/pl/biuletyn/koscioly-wykaz/bukowiec.htm
 * http://goldap.org.pl/2013/06/kosciol-pelen-tajemnic-raz-jeszcze/
 * http://www.bukowiec.11-220.wsiepolskie.pl/
 * http://www.katalog-stron-internetowych.mragowo.pl/c-Wikipedysta:J%C3%B3zefO/Jan_Pfeffer.cgi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatcher83 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

....de:User:messina wrote many articles about jewish cantillation https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tipcha&diff=142217414&oldid=142286345 and about jewish prayer https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barchu&diff=128942734&oldid=137950491 Barchu. The whole conflict began in 2006, when Messina wrote german articles about jewish personalities and jewish organisations. Some of the German authors suggested deleting such jewish content. IMHO all escalation was based on these anti jewish opninions. Messina would not have been banned without his racist german opponents, who managed to get him temporarily banned after and after. What we have is Messina writing thousands of articles, and a group of the ever same anti jewish german opponents acting against him for a decade, since his first jewish articles. Better ban the anti jewish german opponents like de:user:Schulhofpassage  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatcher83 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Article is no hoax but of very poor quality. Usually they look not too bad at first glance, but there are so many errors and it´s not worth it cheking for all the errors in every reference. User produces bad articles like spam as punishment for other users to improve it. User is globally banned for massive sockpuppetry, copyfraud, editwarring, threatening authors, personal attacks of the meanest kind, including frequently accusing of antisemitc behaviour without evidence, does not accept any administrative rulings and has at every minute conflicts with other users. In short: user does everything that you should not do. Messina´s articles mean trouble ahead. User is globaly baned for a reason.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * When you say it is not a hoax, can you show proof? Poor quality is not reason for deletion by itself, unless WP:TNT comes into play. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I´ve checked and improved a group of about German 40 Messina-Articles. It took half a year of my lifetime to check all the references and to reshape it in a way so it might be readable to an average user. Nobody can give me back my lifetime. I´m still not done with these articles, because I still need to see and check some more sources that are not available at my local university lib. So there still might be some errors left over, which I have not found yet. I´ve written just one similar article, I used about 4 to 5 easy accessible sources, also German sources and it was done in one day and needed not further reshaping and improvement. So improving Messina´s articles is a complete waste of time + you might be insulted as a vandal and as completely ignorant of the subject and as an anti jewish racist, as you can read above, just to proof Godwins law. I now regret to ever have touched these articles and I just hate all this endless discussion about wheter this garbage is usefull or not in combination with these endless insults. If you want to have an article about Johann Pfeffer the artist, just take an up to date and generaly accepted source like Thieme-Becker and write the whole thing new from the sketch so you might have an usefull and up to date source of information, that includes the knowledge of todays scientists and not be based on sources that are over 50 or 100 years old.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Btw Thatcher83 is a messina sockpuppet.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2016 (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.