Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luchesi authorship controversy


 * 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.  Singu larity  08:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Luchesi authorship controversy

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete. Contested. This is a non-notable fringe theory. No case is made in the article about why readers should think the theory is notable. Just listening to the works will convince anyone who knows a bit about music that this theory's claim that Luchesi wrote Mozart's Symphonies nos. 39, 40, 41 and Haydn's London Symphonies is unlikely. RobertG &#9836; talk 09:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Non-notable crankery. --Folantin 09:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The "other views" section even says that other scholars haven't paid attention to Taboga's views. If no reliable source has discussed the theory except its creator, it surely fails Notability. EALacey 10:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per EALacey. I would also submit that this article fails even to establish the existence of the subject: if nobody has disagreed with Taboga's claims, how can there be a controversy? Jakew 11:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This is a fringe theory, and a silly one at that. It has not gained wide acceptance or even notice, and does not merit an article. Merge any relevant content to Luchesi's article and perhaps redirect it there. And merge any other content someone can't stand to lose to "Ridiculous nationalist notions" or something. Mak (talk)  12:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The rantings of one deranged fringecrank do not an encyclopedia article make. Delete this noxious nationalist nonsense ASAP. Moreschi Talk 14:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's one person's fringe theory, and has received no mainstream attention.  Significantly, the current article on Luchesi in the comprehensive New Grove makes no mention of this, even though its promoter has been active for many years. Antandrus  (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It has all the hallmarks of a fringe theory, indeed a conspiracy theory (nationalism, paranoia, obliviousness to counterevidence).  However, the theory has been published in a scholarly journal -- see the Talk page for the link.  My only discomfort with deleting is my belief that, in general, the scholarly literature should trump the views of Wikipedia editors.  But I wouldn't much mind making an exception in this particular case.  Opus33 17:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The point here is that we just can't write a whole article about one publication in one journal that no one else has even taken any notice of, as it's so ridiculous - that simply doesn't pass the criterion for notability. Moreschi Talk 18:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It might warrant a single line in the Luchesi page because of the published journal (not a particularly important journal even discounting the astounding discovery).  This whole mess falls under Reliable_sources.  The claims are so incredible that a single journal (one which rarely publishes and then generally runs conference proceedings on Catalan topics) does not count as an exceptional source.  -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2007 (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.