Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Fiebag


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 04:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Peter Fiebag

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There's no reliable references for this guy. Seems to be a non-notable fringe writer. Goblin Face (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Goblin Face (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 23.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 15:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Goblin Face (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete no indication of reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Peter Fiebag is a prolific author within the world of ancient astronaut speculation, and has proved influential within the field. Unfortunately, he appears to have a minimal online presence based on a Google search, and also doesn't appear to have a personal website. He doesn't have much media exposure, so the only substantial sources relating to his ideas are likely his writings themselves, which include hard copies of his books and articles. He has written for Legendary Times, the magazine formerly published by Giorgio A. Tsoukalos. Direct references to these texts with page numbers, etc., would help to give substance to the article. I believe the article should be kept to allow time for sources to be located and cited. Xoegki (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The above quote: "the only substantial sources relating to his ideas are likely his writings themselves" is precisely why he should be deleted. Notability isn't the same as renown or fame. It doesn't matter if he is prolific or influential - if he cannot be shown to be influential he doesn't meet WP:FRINGE standards. Without a few reviews of his writing he doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR standards. Simonm223 (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as noted directly above, fails WP:AUTHOR. 188.220.165.128 (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete No reliable sources. If the subject is "influential" where is the evidence of this? Being prolific is does not make one notable. Are his writings reviewed or cited? Is he in an index of authors? Does a biography appear in such indexes or in a published reliable source? Has he been quoted or interviewed by reliable sources? I find no evidence of this. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:13, 6 March 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.