Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Die Glocke

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 00:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Die Glocke

[edit]
Die Glocke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Maybe this should have been categorised as fiction and the arts, as the article started as one about a fictional device in Nick Cook's book (one of the main sources). So far as I can tell this (an alleged real Nazi device) is not only not notable, it may even be a hoax. Farrell and Mars are hardly reliable sources, and the German version was recently deleted [1] dougweller (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO all claims can be traced back to single author, which would suggest that this fictional device should at most mentioned in his biography. Also compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bell, which resulted in "merge" because the Die Glocke article was less bad. --Pjacobi (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of such a device is well-documented, and Nick Cook is not the only source on the matter. The Allied interrogation of Jakob Sporrenberg revealed that the Bell/die Glocke project was indeed real, in addition to the sabotage of the actual test site discovered by the Soviet. There are various other articles on Nazi secret weaponry, occultism, and so on, and this one should therefore not be deleted. --Manticore126 (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources for such a 'device' existing? Device meaning a secret weapon of some sort. Our German colleagues couldn't find any. The fact that other articles exist is never a reason for keeping an article, but it might be that a brief mention in some other article (there is no article called Nazi secret weaponry). Secret documents about Jacob Sporrenberg have no reliable source (or even public documents), right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:35, January 14, 2009 (UTC)
The Nazis effectively destroyed most (known) evidence of the Bell, and, like many other issues concerning World War II, we have to rely on secondary evidence. I never said there was an article called "Nazi secret weaponry", but rather various other articles on the subject (Nazi atomic energy program, Me-262, and even an entire article listing Wunderwaffe). Now, aside from Jakob Sporrenberg's testimony (please try to spell his name right), you should also consider the post-war works of Igor Witkowski, many of which deal with the Bell, and are cited in other areas on Wikipedia. There is NO valid reason to delete this article; it should instead be improved upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manticore126 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - may be fact, may be fiction. Nevertheless, it has a significant number of books written on it and number of movies and novels. Also, it has had a number of documentaries on it and radio talks about it. Also, Witkowski, Cook and Farrell are notable authors of repute. Witkowski a military historian, Cook a respected aviation journalist and Farrell a physicist and scholar. Build up, don't tear down. It deserves its own article moreso than Duff Beer. Wikipedia is an edication resource. If I saw a movie on it and wanted to learn more the first place I would go would be Wikipedia. Whenever I want to know more on a subject I go to Wikipedia as do my friends. When I do not find an article, I don't think it isn't worth while, just that some admin on here doesn't see the bigger picture. Wikipedia is a first pont of contact for further research and as such should have articles on obscure subjects as long as they are well written and sourced. A conversation with Outpost writer Rae Brunton and Kieran Parker revealed that the Bell article on Wikipedia was of great help after they read Cooks book. AWT (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Farrell may have a reputation, but I wouldn't say it is for being a reliable source on such matters. He is not a physicist (why are you claiming he is, his academic background is all in theology), and he is currently an adjunct (so maybe part-time) professor at an unaccredited Christian college according to his article on Wikipedia. He is into all sorts of fringe stuff, but although he might well be a reliable source for theology, he isn't a reliable source for this. As for Witkowski, his own website doesn't call him a military historian but a journalist. dougweller (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I read Nick Cook's The Hunt for Zero Point and he most certainly does not present it as a "fictional device." Cook's a respected aerospace writer with Janes and my question is, doesn't his non-fiction work The Hunt for Zero Pointe qualify as an RS? At any rate, the deletion of the article from the German Wikipedia does not say much for its real world existence. But given the sources, I'm inclined to keep and categorize under Category:Hoaxes or something. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? The Hunt for Zero Point is no less fiction than Däniken and the like. --Pjacobi (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sez who? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence that AWT contacted only people with a certain point of view. WP:CANVAS applies only if there is evidence of vote-stacking by contacting only persons who are likely to vote a certain way. It seems xe notified those with a vested interest in the previous AFD, which I think is appropriate. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jerry. The people I contact where all those that at least no 1 edit to this article, regardless of their opinion. In fact, I never looked at their opinion or edit, just that they made one. I would have contacted everyone but I saw that certain people were contacted and others not before I got to do it so I contacted the ones that were left out. It only takes a glance at edit histroy to verify facts, not some major conspiracy on my part. LOL. AWT (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep whether or not this is a fictional device, it's certainly recieved enough attention to warrant an article, and the article itself references enough third-party sources and is cited better than many articles here. Kuralyov (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see it's already categorized as a hoax, fictional weapon, conspiracy theory and Nazi mysticism. We've got enough RS for notabilty and article makes it plenty clear the doo-hicky is in all likelihood not the real deal (and thank goodness for that!). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment IMHO, the current state of the article is more of an advertisement (of several newly published books, which seem to become as several other articles on wikipedia in future) rather than a brief article covering the subject with a neutral point of view. As I look into one of the major "contributor" of the subject Joseph P. Farrell, I see an academic in Patristic Theology and Apologetics, with works in alternative archaeology, physics, technology, history, alternative history and strange stuff (as written in his wikipedia bio). He is presented as being the creator of the weapons hypothesis concerning the pyramids at Giza. He very well can be related to U.S. disinformation programme and this die glocke can in fact be a hoax. It is strange to me that an author mentions this die glocke in his 5 books. If Dean Koontz himself did not make a statement that, he was motivated by the legend of die glocke to include theme of it in his novel Lightning (novel), then it's not right to present that novel in the article. Therefore, the article needs more sources, some of which better be older, to satisfy the notability criteria better. Logos5557 (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and speedy close, due to a lack of valid criterion for deletion being asserted. The previous related AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bell, less than 2 weeks ago, arrived at consensus that this article was a valid repository for some information that was at the other article. I think that at least several months after such a consensus is registered should expire prior to repeated deletion attempts. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jerry, I was in on that discussion and it was January 2008, not 2009. Please check the date. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • How could the closing Admin get that so wrong? I seem to have been accused of bringing an article back to AfD prematurely without having waited 'at least several months', whereas it is actually over a year. And I see no consensus there that this article was a valid repository, as only 2 editors suggested it.
It is fairly easy for me to confuse the current year and the previous year in the first two weeks of the year. I am still writing 2008 on checks... I don't think such an error is all that outrageous and not something to make areally big deal about. For the record, I apologize for the error and acknowledge that the AFD was actua,lly a year ago. IT does not affect the recommendation that I made for the disposition of the article, only the speedy close part; which is now mute. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 05:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether its as a piece on Nazi Lore/Mythology, Conspiracy Theory or Incomplete Historical Record or Unsolved Mystery this is a subject that has as much value or merit over other entries even if only for it's conspiracy element but much more so for the questions it raises about Americas willingness to absorb Nazi technology and scientists into its military industrial complex. Andrew in Montana
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Die_Glocke&oldid=1144625534"