Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paulius Galaunė


 * 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 - Article was determined not to be a complete hoax and was rewritten to substantiated sources. Any further content issues can be discussed on the talk page. — Cactus Writer (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Paulius Galaunė

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I am the author of the article, and it is a hoax. I've requested a G7, but it's been refused. Nefesf9 (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Question -- Can you explain the validity of this source? — Cactus Writer (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't meet our policy on sources, does it? In any case, per WP:IAR, you probably don't want to keep an article chock-full of fake references and lies. Better to start again. It's not a complete hoax. Nefesf9 (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is not a complete hoax, and the person is notable, than it should be stubbed. — Cactus Writer (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How are you going to decide which information is made up or not ? Nefesf9 (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The same procedure we use for every article -- by searching for reliable sources. More importantly: are the other articles which you created also hoaxes? — Cactus Writer (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Jonas Asevičius-Acukas is. The other two aren't. Nefesf9 (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I've requested a five year block to prevent me from hoaxing. Nefesf9 (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * NOTE - I have indefinitely blocked the nominator/creator from further editing because of their persistent disruptive editing. At this point, I am uncertain to claims that the articles are hoaxes -- or how much is unsubstantiated. An editor who is familiar with Lithuanian sources should be requested to examine this article as well as Jonas Asevičius-Acukas. — Cactus Writer (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions.  — —  Cactus Writer (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Interesting. How much credence does one give to the confession? Especially given the rapid change in characterization from hoax to 'not a complete hoax'. A Google search reveals numerous mentions, and I don't buy the claim this user made on another page, that the family museum borrowed information from the Wikipedia article --they wouldn't need to. Agreed that what is needed is someone learned in Lithuanian language and culture. Until then I'd not delete on the less than reliable say-so of the article's creator. JNW (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assessment. Despite the creator's claims, the museum webpage existed in this form in February 2005 (five years before the creation of this article) and was last updated in October 2009. — Cactus Writer (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you meant this link to 2005 museum site. Renata (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops... yes, that is the link I meant. Thank you. — Cactus Writer (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: User:Renata3 has been very helpful here, and speaks fluent Lithuanian and English, so I imagine he can help us to get to the bottom of this mess. I've also contacted CD, an administrator on the Lithuanian Wikipedia who speaks English as well. According to CD, this article looks okay, assuming that the Lithuanian article (which is much older than this one, and has not changed much in the past few months) is not also full of false information.  —  Soap  —  22:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This seems to be acceptable now, given User:Soap's contacting of helpful Lithuanian speaking editors. Whether this was a (partial) hoax seems irrelevant now as the info can be verified.  freshacconci  talk talk  01:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. He's a notable person. I re-wrote the article and removed anything I could not readily find in sources that are available to me. I understand that I replaced one off-line source with another, but I guess you'll just have to trust me ;) I can only blame under-developed reference sites in Lithuanian. But I have to say, this is the most elaborate hoax I have come across. Renata (talk) 03:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Thank you for cleaning this up, Renata3. JNW (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2010 (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.