Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lutz Ebersdorf

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lutz Ebersdorf

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Most likely a hoax (see the talk and [1]), but even if not it fails WP:NBIO and WP:ACADEMIC massively. Just google "Lutz Ebersdorf" -suspiria. Nardog (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: concur with @Nardog -- does not reach threshold of notability even if not a hoax. Quis separabit? 02:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax and a movie promotional publicity stunt. The article can be recreated if the hoax itself becomes notable but should not pose as a legitimate BLP. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that I think about it, perhaps we should redirect it to Suspiria (2018 film) once it's deleted. Nardog (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also BLP violating, no references whatsoever for a (claimed) living person. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 12:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I believe this is a hoax and a stunt, and, quite honestly, the lack of sourcing (and a great deal of it coming from the studio itself), as a BLP matter, is more than enough to push this one into a firm delete. If this fellow actually exists, and I doubt it, where's his Abschlussarbeit? Where's his website? A Google link, at least, to his office? None of these items can be found. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 17:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I'd be open to a re-direct to the film, too, aye. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 17:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Suspiria (2018 film). If Ebersdorf is later determined to be a real person, and not just Tilda Swinton in heavy makeup, the article can be re-created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Fine by me. Maybe I should have done that boldly rather than this AfD... Nardog (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - I am now leaning towards delete again because the chances of the article meeting the notability/verifiability threshold are so low regardless of whether he turns out to be a real person. I've revised Suspiria (2018 film) so that it is ready to be redirected to from the page in discussion. Nardog (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced biography and probable hoax. Thanks to Nardog for initiating this AFD. I should have done so myself but was busy with other things. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Reading the above article, Ebersdorf is definitely "real", but may be Tilda Swinton. Maybe a similar case to Roderick James? Test No 1 (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that if Ebersdorf is indeed Swinton, we probably should redirect to the Swinton page. We don't really have enough info at present though... In addition, there are no references to Ebersdorf in Swinton's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Test No 1 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - These are horrible ideas. Wikipedia should not be facilitating and encouraging dishonest advertising.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This shows everything that is wrong with our current system. 1-we do not speedy delete articles with only IMDB as a source. This is exhibit A on why we should burn and destroy every article sourced only to IMDb with extreme prejudice. 2-we need better control over creating articles. 3-hoaxes like this should never make it to main space. We need to make it so every article needs to go through the AfC process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Johnpacklambert, this AfD debate is not the place for meta policy discussions, and you know it. Please restrain yourself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some policies need to be attacked at any and all turns, and the current wild-west approach to article creation and the over-reliance on the clearly unreliable IMDb are two such things that need to be attacked at every turn.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the article should be deleted for the above reasons, as well as lack of notability, at least until Suspiria comes out. Test No 1 (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2018 (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.