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 No Consensus. Jreferee T/C 09:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, a single 1996 book alleging a grand "conspiracy theory within a conspiracy theory" does not negate the need for an article about somebody who definitely did live, and definitely was a noted entertainer of their time. You can argue to change the page's content based on "facts", but you can't just call for Judy Garland to be deleted because you believe "a theory" claims it gives incorrect facts. Sherurcij(Speaker for the Dead) 03:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of the page has any refs. We don't know any facts. If you accept Doppelgangers or The Murder of Adolf Hitler: The Truth About the Bodies in the Berlin Bunker as a source then yes we know he existed and was a hitler double. Nothing else. but if you are not prepared to accept that we know nothing.Geni 03:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it would have been nice to give it an unreferenced tag and/or a notability tag first, instead of straight to AfD. The article it conflicts with is also unreferenced (section), so I wouldn't worry about that until/unless some sources are brought forward. Deletion seems premature if sources exist. Dicklyon 04:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Books are mentioned both in the Political_decoy article and on the talk page. It would be trivial to format them as refs. Problem has been know about for over a year. Nothing has been done. seeTalk:Gustav Weler.Geni 04:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you've known about it for so long, why didn't you help by formatting the books as refs? Dicklyon 05:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't. Wikipedia has see the talk page.Geni 11:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Political decoy. The guy isn't notable enough for his own article. Clarityfiend 16:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears that the few "facts" we have are highly contested. At best we could say Gustav Weler, according to two authors, was a political decoy; other historians dispute this, and that's just not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appear to now be several independent reliable sources about him; he can be notable even though the facts about him are highly contested; in fact, it's that contesting that makes him notable, if people are publishing about it. Dicklyon 01:19, 23 September 2007 (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.