Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph C. Zoransky


 * 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   delete. j⚛e deckertalk 02:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Joseph C. Zoransky

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

not notable person Noebse (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of notability presented. Linked source simply says he was "employed" by Sears in Wilkes-Barre, not that he was an "executive". Choess (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see a claim of importance or significance. He is clearly described as an American, and no title of nobility is claimed in the article, though someone added a European noble tag. It may not be clear whether this is a hoax (there was a previous request for speedy-deletion that was denied, which alleged this article was a hoax.), but based on WP:A7 it might still be eligible for speedy deletion. Still, as it is so new I'd hate for that to be applied. Has anyone tried to help the page creator with this?


 * Noebse, I don't like it when the only action someone has done on an article is nominating it for deletion, especially with no discussion on the article's talk page. The first action should be to try to help, not delete. WP:DEL-CONTENT says, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." From what I can tell, the only contributions you have made here since 2012 has been to nominate pages for deletion or speedy-deletion. You have to know what that looks like.


 * Given the Herzog Bernhard Zoransky AfD discussion, I wonder if this might have more to do with a well intentioned editor who doesn't understand notability requirements. Suggesting that either article is a hoax is unwarranted as far as I can tell. But in the end, it seems this article is likely not about a notable subject, so delete. Dcs002 (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right, but I do not like accounts which spam irrelevant articles by creating a walled garden. --Noebse (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is good to assume good faith at first, but from the German deletion discussion it seems that sources were actively faked. Also, this is part of a larger "walled garden" of articles, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston. JohnCD (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Article contains no WP:RS that establish WP:NOTABILITY. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Dcs002 & Noebse: You are referring to User:GenieGeschichte when speaking about the "well intentioned editor who doesn't understand notability requirements"? It might look like that in this case, but considering the two other "Zoranskies" it seems evident to me, that the "History Genius" put a lot of effort to create a hoax to fool Wikipedia. No way, that that happened unintentionally!--Susumu at (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems like a hoax, but that is not our mission here. Hoaxes should be speedy-deleted by admins, not through this process. We can determine notability and whether the sources are sufficient, but calling the creator a liar is in itself an attack, and we should use all restraint. On its own, I think this article is about a non-notable subject. I think that is sufficient reason to delete. Dcs002 (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: for details please see my contributions to Bernhard Zoransky and Martin V. Zoransky AfD above and below. The resoning applies to all Zoransky articles. LagondaDK (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Dcs002: Some IP suggested all three articles for speedy-deletion, but this was reverted by JohnCD, because it was a not to obvious hoax. But it is still a hoax. The German Afd-discussion proved this by all means. This "Contributer" faked (and uploaded to google-books) a self-published "German source" for "reference", in which he included a bad, babelfish-like German translation of his English WP-Articles. I think this is proof enough for bad intentions.--Susumu at (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your comments. I still don't think we are justified in calling this a hoax though. My standard for that is maybe higher than that of most people (though the admins who rejected the speedy-deletes seem to have a higher standard as well - it wasn't obvious to them, and if it's not obvious, I think we should refrain from such labels). However, my original !vote stands. In my first post in this discussion, I !voted to delete based on lack of notability (and no apparent claim of importance or significance), which is the reason given for this proposed deletion. I also see the main editors of the article haven't attempted to improve the article and haven't participated yet in this discussion. Dcs002 (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't understand why a person would put so much effort into articles such as these, which are about minor nobles at best, as a hoax. No one is contesting whether the subjects of these articles were real, only the claimed nobility and the reliability of the sources. Sure, they could be the editor's ancestors, but that is a very weak motive for perpetrating an outright hoax. (No one accepts WP articles as a RS, not even WP.) It is a more reasonable motive for trying to get articles for non-notable subjects, but that is different from perpetrating an outright hoax. Dcs002 (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Article makes no claim to notability at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @Dcs002: well, at first sight I just belived it was a try to make fun out of the wikipedia and descrediting it. There ARE people out there, who put some efford in it just for fun ore meniace. But after reading LagondaDK (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC) at Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston it might as well be an infamouse try of Viral marketing to promote the book mentioned there! Consider what happens when medias go for the news "Wikipedia fooled by Novelist", it might get really profitable for the selling numbers of the book, can't it?--Susumu at (talk) 08:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment This is beginning to remind me of the fake pirate article incident, but with quite possibly more base motives. I have now been directly attacked for having nominated the article on T.R. Threston for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Why is this at AFD at all. The article basically says that he grew up, went to college, got a job, and got married.  He had a life.  Nothing particularly notable about it at all.  This should have been speedied under WP:CSD.  It probably also qualifies under WP:CSD as having been created by a member of this sock farm.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete all: After the recent update of LagondaDK on his Talk page I suggest ALL of the "articles" listed on Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston as part of the sockpuppet network should be speedy-deleted. I think, this is proof enough, that there is not a single one, which is NOT a hoax or at least provide fake information.--Susumu (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Discussions of sockpuppetry, decisions elsewhere about German articles... Maybe it's only my bad Google translation of the German article, but what I read there is still along the lines of "it makes sense that this is bogus" rather than "this is proven." I see nothing proven, but again, my !vote is to delete based on non-notability, and like WikiDan61says, maybe even speedy-deleted under WP:CSD. We agree on deletion, maybe even speedy deletion, for the reason given in the nomination for deletion, but I do not want this to be a consensus that this was a hoax or sockpuppetry, which is being investigated elsewhere and outside the scope of our task here, IMO. I disagree that either has been substantiated here, and I don't see why it's necessary to expand this AfD discussion to include such allegations when they are not necessary or part of the proposed reasons for deletion. What does that serve? We seem to have enough to agree on a deletion under GNG and A7, and I think we should do so, and let the sockpuppetry investigation do its job. It looks like that's happening, but the investigation is not complete. I think the scope of our discussion should be limited to this article and whether it should be deleted for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion, and we all seem to be in agreement. Delete. Dcs002 (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment' Sockpuppetry investigation complete. Again, delete (!voted above), and I'm now ok with deleting for hoax based on that investigation. Dcs002 (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * about Maybe it's only my bad Google translation of the German article, but what I read there is still along the lines of "it makes sense that this is bogus" rather than "this is proven.": It was in the end generally considered proven, that it was fake. (I am a German native speaker, even if some people from Germany might disagree in that.) And it was ended there with SLA (=Schnelllöschantrag, equal to speedy-deletion). If you go on Criteria for speedy deletion, then klick on the "Deutsch" interwiki you will get conformation for that. Anyway, I think by now WP:snow should apply here.--Susumu (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I did not know what SLA meant, though I did wonder. With the sockpuppetry case closed, I suppose this will all be over very quickly - all related pages. Dcs002 (talk) 11:06, 2 August 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.