Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gottfried Eschenbach
- 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. postdlf (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Gottfried Eschenbach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has been here for over four years, but it is a hoax. Thanks to new user DraesekeAlken (talk) who spotted it, and to Schissel (talk) who tagged it. There is no reference to Gottfried Eschenbach in Grove Music Online or in the Oxford Companion to Music. The book about him listed under "Further reading" does not exist.
Searches find no independent source. They turn up many references to this book which at first sight looks like a source, but it is just another WP mirror: "LLC Books" is one of those companies that makes "books" of reprinted Wikipedia articles.
There is a "Gottfried Eschenbach Society", or at least there is a website on a free web-hosting site, which shows little sign of activity - the page "Music" just says "Coming soon". The website contains the same text as the article, marked "Copyright © 2010 The Gottfried Eschenbach Society", and is evidently part of the hoax. The WP article was posted in January 2010, so it is not clear which came first. The website also contains the same photograph; I have tried Tineye but not found any source for that.
A case could be made for speedy deletion as a copyright violation or as a blatant hoax, but I bring it here for more opinions, and also because disinformation from this article has spread so far. It will be useful that anyone tracing information about Eschenbach back to its source here should see the deletion log with a link to this discussion, and so will see not just that the page has been deleted but why. JohnCD (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. This is not supported by our guidelines but if I cannot see a German composer in German WP I doubt the notability or even the authenticity -as in this case, of that composer. Thanks for finding out. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Addition: Have you seen this? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ha! More confirmation. It's evidently the members of that site who first spotted this. Thanks again, gentlemen! JohnCD (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete under G3 (blatant hoax) Aerospeed (Talk) 15:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. No reliable sources found. Almost certainly a hoax. --Boson (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. The research at Unsung Composers is compelling: not present in any major music catalog, article claims he was prominent enough to conduct his works in concert but he is not present in any biographical lists, only book supposedly used as a reference doesn't seem to exist, title of the song cycle attributed to this allegedly German composer is grammatically incorrect German. Hoax. — Gwalla | Talk 17:32, 8 September 2014 (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.