Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Orsitsch

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. Kevin (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Orsitsch[edit]

Delete A person who cannot be shown to have ever lived via reliable sources fails <-- how about Jesus ? prove me he lived !

As I and User:Crypto-ffm have pointed out on Talk:Maria Orsitsch, there is no evidence that this person actually existed. Her existence is alleged in crypto-historic Nazi occult conspiracy theories, and, as the weblink in the current article illustrates, on right-wing webforums (the have a nice Black Sun on the top of the page.) Aside from the point that there is nothing really worth keeping in the article (and I have no intention to rewrite it completely), the notability of a person whose existence is only alleged in conspiracy theories is highly dubious. Deletion is the obvious solution, and on the German WP they already did that a month ago or so. If anyone considers this necessary, I can try to find the link to the debate (if there was any) on the German WP or give some more information so that we can discuss notability here, but I personally think the case is clear. Zara1709 (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A person who cannot be shown to have ever lived via reliable sources fails verifiability. She is not presented as being a legendary person like Paul Bunyan but as a "famous medium." Yet she is only mentioned, apparently in sites about Nazi occultism. Edison (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A person who cannot be shown to have ever lived via reliable sources fails verifiability" BRB, starting up the AFD for Jesus Christ right now.. SashaNein (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rofl; Fortunately, beliefs of some Neo-Nazis with occult tendencies are far less notable then the beliefs of Christianity. Fictional persons can be notable if there are enough people who believe in them, but I'd say that this isn't the case here. I mean, I could easily find out a dozen putative secret organizations from this milieu about which we DON'T need an article. What we would need is some expansion on Vril, Nazi occultism, Thule Society, Nazi UFOs, etc...Zara1709 (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you see the part about "legendary persons"? The article claims this was a human being who lived in the 20th century, not God incarnate. Edison (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that the nominator confirms the notability in the nomination. Regardless of whether she was real or not, she is the subject of an apparently notable controvery and the topic is valid for WP. However, the discussion should not validate one theory or the other, but present the controversy. This needs clean up and POV work, but could be a facinating tale. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I do not believe Notability was established. I was only to find one brief reference in a Scholarly work as shown here [1]. Without more information better suited for the Wikipedia on Aldebaran. ShoesssS ^Talk 16:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no verifiable sources that support notability. I am not concerned with her existence but her notability. It might be a fascinating tail (as is the Loch Ness Monster) but it needs to be documented. It wreaks of WP:OR. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was prepared to recommend a keep based on the notability of the discussion as to whether or not she existed, but there are only 76 Google hits, plus a handful in Scholar and Books which seem to be pretty fringish, so I'm going to have to say delete. Corvus cornix_talk 23:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources to verfiy notabiliy as a real person or as a fictional person. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:57, 19 June 2008 (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.