Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Kreisling

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 speedily deleted (G3) by Ponyo. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Kreisling[edit]

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

This is an article about someone that, as far as can be determined, didn't exist. While the original information is almost certainly a hoax, the article was likely created in good faith. I originally prodded it but another editor has pointed out that, given the high chance the article will be recreated at some point (disinformation on the internet being what it is), an AfD would be better to get a mandate to salt the article against recreation.

Related Milhist discussion here. EyeSerene^talk 10:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant hoax. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obvious hoax. I'm fine with salting as well. Parsecboy (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notwithstanding the bizarre claims made about this person (which do yell "Hoax" or myth to me too), there is no sign of any Reliable Sources to prove they existed so the article fails under that respectGraemeLeggett (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatent hoax - needs salting. Speedy close if possible Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax as established above. I'm wondering if this is more than just something made up one day, and if there might be notability to the hoax itself. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I originally tagged it for multiple issues because I was not sure if it was a hoax and I could only find one (non reliable) source. Further research reveals no substance to the article. Kudpung (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought this was a hoax, I have tried to find sources and have found none that would pass RS. Most of the article is unreferenced any way (including the more bizarre claims). No sources for White Wolf of the luftwaffe either (and this sounds a bit like She wolf of the SS to me). Given the nature of the claims I would have thought that there would have been at least one RS (or photo) on line and there’s none (also only the SS were admitted to his round table, not members of the Luftwaffe). The while thing stinks of hoax.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The linked sources are unreliable and appear to replicate each other. Any pictures I've seen of "Kreisling" actually appear to be Hanna Reitsch. There's been a fair amount of discussion about this on some aviation message boards, and it's been roundly debunked. But the hoax has made its way into answers.com and some other places, so it's got legs (and has taken some funny turns...here. Himmler's "round table" was reserved for Gruppenfuhrers, so they got that part wrong (in addition to everything else).Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Ugh, there's an article on Kreisling? Here? Please just slap a {{db-hoax}} and be done with it, this is a well-known and long-debunked hoax within WWII circles. Tarc (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why the surprise, this is whre all internet hoaxes end up. Its why we need to slap down on them harder.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a fairly extensive search turns up no reliable refs and so I can only conclude that the existence of this person is a hoax. The idea of converting the article to deal with the on-going hoax is interesting, but again there are no reliable refs that say it is a hoax! - Ahunt (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I've already !voted above). I think we should speedy this now and salt it) Kudpung (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is wrong on so many levels.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As no attmept has been made to defend this page I think Speedy would be good.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main reason to complete the AfD as opposed to CSD is that will prevent it being re-created in the future. We could call WP:SNOW and close the AfD early however. - Ahunt (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right Ahunt :) EyeSerene^talk 15:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are just deleting the de:Anna Kreisling as fake. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No this debate is about the English Wikipedia version, but I note that the German language article is up for AfD as well and the same points are being made. - Ahunt (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what Eingangskontrolle was trying to tell you ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake, I thought it was a question and not a statement. - Ahunt (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that the German Wikipedia article has now been deleted as a hoax. - Ahunt (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a blatant hoax and salt. A hoax in the conspiracy and counterfactual history blogosphere:Google hoaxilicious coverage. The article is bound to get re-created otherwise.Ironically, if she got discussed in books and mainstream media articles about myths, legends and hoaxes, the story might become as encyclopedic as articles about the Easter Bunny, Paul Bunyan, and the Tooth fairy. Her mythical exploits are not yet reliable covered enough to justify such an article where they are labelled as a myth. Edison (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to reiterate that it appears that this article that was created in good faith and that no sanctions should be taken against the originator. Carrite (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We generally do not block for a first creation of this kind. It's a hoax, but it's not egregious. Kudpung (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have speedily deleted the article as an obvious hoax and salted against recreation based on the consensus above.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't argue with that, we were into a WP:SNOW situation here pretty clearly. - Ahunt (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2011 (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.