Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herzog Bernhard 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 decker ^talk 02:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herzog Bernhard Zoransky[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hoax (see de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/29. Juli 2014#Bernhard Zoransky (SLA) for German discussion, ending with speedy deletion, after this Article was translated into German) Noebse (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should not be here for discussion if it is clearly a hoax. It should be speedy-deleted. I see no evidence that this is a hoax. Can you clarify? I looked at the lengthy German discussion you linked (using Google Translate :P), and it doesn't appear to me that there was a hoax confirmed, just suspicion, though the admin (if I am reading correctly) deleted the article for "nonsense/vandalism." Nothing I found in that discussion or on the deleted article page indicated speedy-deletion from the German WP either, just deletion. (Of course my reading of that is based on the limited translation from Google.) As there had been previous talk about the German article suffering from a poor translation from this English article, I wonder if that meant nonsense, as in the language was not comprehensible due to a bad translation, which is not sufficient criteria for speedy deletion here. (I don't believe being a member of nobility is enough for notability, but that's a different discussion.) Can you give us more to go on? Dcs002 (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article was speedy deleted on the German Wikipedia.

The sources do not indicate this person had the title of a Herzog (duke). Indeed the google books uploaded (Philip Van Ness Myers (15 June 1893). Introduction to Prussian History: A Textbook for High Schools, Seminaries, and Colleges (German). Bender Books USA. p. 7. ISBN 978-1-4993-6557-3.

Kaspar, Johann Z. Die Zoransky Familie. ISBN 0692213872.) are selfpublished and the ISBN numbers do not suit the year of publication. --GDEA (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This does not support a hoax. It only supports lack of RS to support claims of importance. We should not accuse people of dishonesty because their sources do not support their claims. (However, as this is an English article, I think the English word "Duke" should be used. I thought Herzog was part of his name.) This is a very new article. Has anybody offered help to the creator, or tried to improve it as an alternative to deletion? I think this discussion is far too hasty, and a hoax (the reason given in this nomination for deletion) is certainly not supported by any evidence that I see, even if the sources do not say he was a herzog. Also, remember the discussion for the German article concerned only the German article, not this one, and it is not binding or conclusive evidence in itself. Notability has not been supported. Ok. But that does not mean the creator of this article lied or perpetrated a hoax. Dcs002 (talk) 07:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are certain hints that this articles is a fake because of historial inaccuracies that should not occur in a reliable article. Herzog Bernhard Zoransky should have remained catholic during the Kulturkampf (1871-1878), although he died 1849, more than twenty years before.

The inline reference for the Kulturkampf, Frankenberg's Prussia: A Guide To Lost Prussian Nobility by Franz W Frankenberg. Published 1858, is dated 13 years before the Kulturkampf happened. It is very short book because it only contains 36 page.

The book is self-published under the platform reatespace.com of amazon.com. Nobody checks whether this book is an authentic reprint of a historic book or pure invention.

One book which is given as source in this article, "Johann Wilhelm: Herzog Martin V. Zoransky has got an "ISBN 1499310390" and is claimed to be published in Germany in 1918. There neither an entry for this book nor for the author, the ISBN or Zoransky in online catalogue of the German National Library, which collects all books having been published in Germany. The precessor for the "ISBN", the "SBN"-number was introduced in 1966, the ISBN in 1970. --GDEA (talk) 08:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also take into consideration Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston. --Noebse (talk) 08:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this looks very suspicious. The case has not yet been proven, but from multiple angles, it looks suspicious. But this AfD must be evaluated through this process on its own, as the falsehood of sources and the accusation of sockpuppetry are allegations, not proven, and we are not admins who can impose sanctions for such things. We are here to evaluate this article as an AfD. The reason given is "hoax," and that is not a reason for AfD, but for speedy-deletion. I doubt the subject is notable though, and that would be a reason to delete under this process. Dcs002 (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: for details please check my reasoning on Herzog Martin V. Zoransky below, that basically applies to all Zoranskies. All Zoransky-articles are cross-related to each other, the relevance of each article in terms of the encyclopedia was based on the argument that one Zoransky was rfelated to another Zoransky, who was allegedly nobility (Martin V. Zoransky), but the given documents were a hoax and made up. In case of a later Zoransky (forgot which one ... apparentlie died in 1988) his relevance was based on the claim that his ancestor (Martin V. Zoransky) was Prussian nobility, but there was no proof of that. Also he was apparently the grandfather of T.S. Threston, and was meant to be relevant because of that, but T.S. Threston herself does not show as much to justify a biographicle article. All those articles, including all on the Threston family and the Zoranskies, had been initiated by a number of accounts that had been established in July 2014 and were only working on those articles related to Threstons and Zoranskies. All those accounts are currently undergoing an inquiry regarding the suspicion of sockpuppetry. Also the Coat of Arms of the Zoransky Family that has been uploaded to Wiki-Commons is facing an AfD right now. LagondaDK (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the sockpuppet investigation is in progress, but it has not come to a conclusion. I see many suspicious coincidences, but what is lacking is anything beyond the coincidences - the timing and the use of those accounts - to indicate a nefarious motive. Allegations and investigation for sockpuppetry do not constitute evidence of sockpuppetry. (Lack of RS does not establish motive either.) Nothing is yet conclusive except the German deletion, and that was about the German article. I think we should delete this article for a more clearly substantiated reason, like lack of notability, or even criterion #7 in WP:DEL#REASON, part of the deletion policy. (It could be argued that a thorough attempt has been made to source the topic and found insufficient evidence.) I would support that, but I cannot support a conclusion that this is a hoax simply because others are investigating sockpuppetry, there is poor or even inappropriate sourcing, or a German article was deleted, speedy or otherwise. This discussion is about this article alone, and whether this article should be deleted because it is a hoax.

Embarrassing correction: I said "The reason given is "hoax," and that is not a reason for AfD, but for speedy-deletion." Hoax clearly IS a reason for deletion through this policy, regardless of the result of a speedy-deletion request. My bad! Dcs002 (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No clear evidence that this is real.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would !vote to delete this article based on lack of notability, but I do not want to !vote for the conclusion that this is a hoax. I am concerned that a consensus here, which would include my own !vote to delete, would then be used somewhere else to say we declared this article a hoax. I can't be a part of that kind of consensus. Can we delete for non-notability or lack of evidence without having to call this a hoax? Dcs002 (talk) 05:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could easily delete all those Articles related to the Zoransky-Clan (Bernhard, Martin and others), as well as articles of the Threston-Clan, including the main article on the alleged author (and "philantropist") T.R. Threston by arguing that 1) the sources used are questionable (old books using ISBN that did not exist before 1970, new books apparently published 2014 using a ten digit ISBN that was not used any more after 2007), if you'd decide to go easy on the authors you might give them time to raise the quality of the articles. 2) you could delete all those articles because of a lack of relevance, because after being stripped of unreliable sources that turned out to be fake (please check here for details), there should not be much data left that justify an article. Also the article on T.R. Threston could be deleted due to a lack of relevance of that person, because her relevance is highly based on the relevance of those Zoransky and Threston people who are themselves not as relevant. ... If they ever existed at all! That would be the easy way out, but I personally believe it would be for the better if we could make a stand and dig out that snakepit! Lets get to the bottom of it. LagondaDK (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't pretend to understand why, any more than Dcs002, but the sources that actually mention Bernhard are recently self-published books that have been back-dated on Google Books to make them look older. This is absolutely a hoax. Choess (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If not as a hoax then at least under WP:CSD#G5 as having been created by a member of this sock farm, whose intention seems to have been to create a great number of hoaxes based on hoaxish, quickly created external sources. This was an elaborate hoax, but a hoax nonetheless. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all: After the recent update of LagondaDK on his Talk page I suggest ALL of the "articles" listed on Wikipedia: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) 22:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sockpuppet investigation is concluded, and I am now comfortable !voting for deletion based on the conclusion of that investigation. It looked suspicious from the start, I know, but it's a serious allegation, and I think we need to proceed with caution before accusing someone or concluding someone did something so dishonest. I am glad that investigation concluded before this discussion was closed, and I hope I have played devil's advocate well. I feel no joy about this at all, but it is the right thing to do, and I agree all similar articles by the same sock farm should be deleted as well. Thank you to those of you who investigated this and put such effort into protecting our integrity! Dcs002 (talk) 04:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.