Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory of Hitler´s escape


 * 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.  Sandstein (talk) 06:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Theory of Hitler´s escape

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is original research. A typical conspiracy theory --Church of emacs (Talk | Stalk) 17:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Certainly notable conspiracy theory, only concern is the current state of the article. Needs quite a lot of referencing, rewriting and general clean-up. M0RD00R (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree the article needs a lot of work, but most of these theories are published elsewhere, so someone just needs to cite sources for the genuine published theories (however whacky), and delete the imaginary, original research ones. Any volunteers?  Perhaps we should add a comment that these theories are rejected by most historians.    D b f i r s   19:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll join in the fun of rewriting/citing if there are any website references. I don't have any books on the subject. Reconvene on the talk page I suppose? -FrankTobia (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The best reference seems to be a book called "Hitler's Escape" by Ron T Hansig. Published in 2005 by Athena Press; ISBN 1932077820.  A synopsis can be found at www.hitlersescape.com.  I don't have access to the text of the book, and I don't know where Mr Hansig stands on the Crackpot -> Historian scale, but he seems to have put forward an argument slightly stronger than those on which several other Wikipedia articles are based. (perhaps they should all be deleted?) (but I can remember when Global warming used to be in this category!)    D b f i r s   21:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Looks like original research, maybe an essay. It worries me that there are no sources. If this is a notable and verifiable conspiracy theory, we need sources or else it's no better than idle speculation. Generally I agree with M0RD00R's comment, and I feel that it would need a rewrite from the ground up to be a decent article, so a delete wouldn't hurt anyone. At the same time, the facts are pretty hard if they can be supported with references, but even then it still violates WP:SYN. -FrankTobia (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Probably belongs in shortened, impeccably sourced form in Death of Adolf Hitler. Right now it isn't clear that this is not largely synthesis of sources, though. --Dhartung | Talk 19:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - If there is an article on the death of Hitler, we certainly don't need this as well. OR and ?notable as well. Scolaire (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per previous comments. Pity this didn't come with a .wav file of "Springtime for Hitler" Ecoleetage (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per comments above. ~ Ambrosia-  talk 04:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:OR.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 08:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The statement that there were no sources is simply wrong: the sources are the newspaper articles and the autobiography. There are only no internet links. But all the newspaper articles can be found in archives. And the autobiography "Speaking Frankly "....I have that autobiography and the statement, given in this article is true. So, there ARE sources, but no internet sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.180.32.54 (talk) 08:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My issue is not that sources don't exist. Surely you recognize that there are no sources cited within the article. If there are newspaper and book sources, you can cite them. Even then, though, I still feel like you'll run into WP:SYN issues. -FrankTobia (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn´t write the article. But I was in an archive and I have the autobiography. That is why I can merely say that the sources exist and all written in the article is true (which on the other hand doesn´t mean that I think it´s a good article). Much must be improved. But I also do not know any internet source to cite. However once again: If you go into an archive and see those mentioned articles of 1947 and 48, you´ll see everything is correct. —Preceding comment added by 62.134.104.22 Does anyone know an internet site of the newspapers, which are mentioned in the article? There, we could probably find the articles in the archives and so give a good citing, couldn´t we?


 * Delete as OR/synthesis -- I'm surprised someone who has the autobiography doesn't know the article got the name of the book wrong.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per comments above.--Sarkana (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, much must be improved: but, if we can get reliable internet sources of the newpaper articles, I´ll propose to keep.......if we can get internet sources of the newspaper articles.......and the part of Byrnes´ autobiography, "Speaking Frankly", I don´t know any internet source, but I can say, what´s written in the article is true

The user "Realy nice guy" suggests to merge a more compact version with the main article (see disussion page)......what about this idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.134.104.120 (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As for a merge, I oppose until the information to be merged is sourced and has citations. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Seems to be patent nonsense, with little or no citations. --Simpsons fan 66 03:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know an internet page where to find the newspaper articles? I read them all in archives in New York, Washington etc. and what is written in the article is right (which does not necessarily mean the article need not be improved). But I don´t know any internet source. And the autobiography "Speaking Frankly", years ago I read that book and I can remember that this statement of Stalin was a part of that biography. Another question: Does anyone know a pathologist to ask, if a body can burn in that time and only ash remains? Is that possible? I don´t know, but generally, instead of crying there were no references, I would search for 1.)an internet site with these newspaper articles;2.)a copy of the autobiography of Byrnes;3.)medical sources, if it was possible to burn a body to ash in that time. By the way.......as aforementioned the theories are already published, so, I wouldn´t say this article was an establishment of a theory. It simply needs quite a lot of referencing, rewriting and general clean-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.180.32.14 (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Bad textual quality alone would not be a sufficient reason for deleting the article, original research is . --Leithian (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete original research. If it were a synthesis, it should have been deleted due to lack of support by independent, reliable sources. Ironically, the lede of the article states that the sources would be included. B.Wind (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2008 (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.