Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ludwig Straniak

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. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ludwig Straniak

Ludwig Straniak (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I think this fails WP:BIO. There are references included, but the only claim to notability seems to be an association with the Nazis. Although important details that would establish notability are left out. For example, how often did the Nazis employ him? When did they employ him? I think without those details, we cannot establish a context for determining his notability. Delete unless cleaned up to address the above. I did prod this, but the prod was contested.TheRingess 23:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I suggest people contribute to articles with important information rather than nominate them for deletion. Class it as a stub maybe? I have added references for further reseach on the person and he is known for far much more than the Nazi's as the references show. I will dig out decent biographical information and hope others do also. FK0071a 08:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unless someone can prove this passes WP:BIO, as I am getting under 100 ghits: [1]. Ghits might not prove notability, but under 100 is pretty bad. -Patstuart^talk|edits 01:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Patstuart^talk|edits 01:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We know that the article is way below par, but you are ignoring the man himself and his wok on pendulum mumbo-jumbo like: STRANIAK, LUDWIG Die achte Gross-Kraft der Natur und ihre physikalischen Gesetze,

• Delete - I concur with Patstuart, but the ghit count is 55. Verifiability concerns. MER-C 03:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. - ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 06:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. ghits that low does not augur well, but I think the article's got legs. It's unreasonable to expect foursquare articles right out of the gate, particularly when the subject is as obscure as this one. It may take a while, but I see room to grow. Ford MF 09:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Kusma (討論) 09:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now, I agree that the article is a mess and bizarre but there is room for development.--Dmz5 10:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: The article is worse than a mess but it's well referenced which appears to establish notability. Someone who died 50 years ago but who was once notable is still notable per WP:N and even though there's little or no evidence on the 'net there does appear to be evidence in books and such, so it really has to stay. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 11:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough Nazi mumbo-jumbo witchdoctor, deleting them will just make them pop up again. The net is not the place to ascertain notability for something that happened 50 years before it ... this is a typical GO TO THE LIBRARY case Alf photoman 14:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I can understand all your points, but all I've heard so far is "he's notable and you can't pay attention to google". No explanation of how he's notable, or why he passes WP:BIO. Could you elaborate? -Patstuart^talk|edits 16:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

My reasoning is that there seems to be a lot of room for research and expansion. It seems to me that the article asserts its subject's notability, and beyond that this is a cleanup/expand job and doesn't warrant deletion.--Dmz5 18:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

My reasoning is that this guy actually was reading cards, runes and whatever mumbo-jumbo for the notables of the Third Reich, who at the same time based some of their decisions on whatever he augured. Serves well to explain some of the inexplicable decision that can of loons took Alf photoman 22:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Well-referenced, asserts notability. --- RockMFR 19:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Google test is completely inaccurate for persons who lived before the internet age.--Ioannes Pragensis 22:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not a reason to keep an article Bwithh 03:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, but some editors here use the Google test even if clearly inappropriate (Patstuart, MER-C, Split_Infinity).--Ioannes Pragensis 09:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

But I changed my mind after reading your well-researched vote. Delete.--Ioannes Pragensis 09:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete due to question marks over sources Just because there are books listed as references, does not make them reliable - or appropriate - sources. There are 5 books mentioned in the references section of the article. 3 of these have indexes which are searchable online. The indexes of two books by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke are available on Google Books[[2][3]. "Ludwig Straniak" or "Straniak" does not appear in their indexes or from the internal google search of their text. (There is only 1 passing, very brief hit for "Ludwig Straniak" in Google Books[4] and none for a mixed search term for Straniak and Nazi[5]. Also nothing on Google Scholar[6]) . As for the third book (by Peter Levenda), the index to is available on Amazon.com through the "Look Inside" function [7]. This does have a mention of Straniak in its index (p230-232). However, Peter Levenda appears to be a professional occult conspiracy theorist[8]. Yes, the latest version of his book has a foreword by Norman Mailer, but Mailer is a something of a fan of Levenda's conspiracy theories. For instance, see Mailer's review (front page of Levenda's site) about Levenda's first volume in his "Sinister Forces" trilogy about the "Satanic undercurrent" of American history (which Mailer still admits has little in the way of "hard evidence"). While there are two other books (one by a self-proclaimed mystic) on the list unavailable through google/amazon, what I've seen from the other three as well as other searches does not make me confident about this article. Bwithh 04:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Followup I found a text copy of the fourth book (the one by Baker) on this admittedly apparently unreliable website[9]. However, the pdf downloads as a full 168 pages of text with full bibliographical notes at the end and seems to be coherent and in good order. The pdf text search function works fine. There are zero hits for "Straniak". So that's 3 out of five books references coming up blank and a fourth one by a professional conspiracy theorist and the last (which I have not been able to check) by a "mysticist"/"magician" Karl_Spiesberger who was a proponent of runic magic[10]. Failure of WP:V/WP:RS. Oh, and there's the amateur "ghost research" website linked in the article as well[11] (written by a "ghost hunter"[12]) which is totally inadmissible as a reference. Bwithh 04:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You are basing your opinion to much on a defective article and too little on the bloke himself. He was on of the leading figures in trying to bring about a pseudo-scientific acceptance of the pendulum mumbo-jumbo, see : STRANIAK, LUDWIG Die achte Gross-Kraft der Natur und ihre physikalischen Gesetze (Diessen vor München, J. C. Hubers Verlag. 1936) which is quoted by almost every pendulum augur Alf photoman 15:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Bwithh's WP:V concerns. Kusma (討論) 08:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bwithh, plus the supposed "Institute for Occult Warfare" would be "Institut für okkulte Kriegsführung" (and hence IOK and not IOW) in German and I can find no evidence for its existence. This is fringe occultism with fringe sources. ~ trialsanderrors 01:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

References

I want to clear this up. The references that are now in the article and listed below mention Straniak. I will scan the pages of all of these if it help you. Also, I will make youtude entries for the documentary references ot him if you like? Again I state that I suggest people contribute to articles with important information rather than nominate them for deletion. Class it as a stub maybe? I have added references for further reseach on the person and he is known for far much more than the Nazi's as the references show. I will dig out decent biographical information and hope others do also. Wiki is about supplying information for further research! FK0071a 16:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

References

Books

• Reveal the Power of the Pendulum: Secrets of the Sidereal Pendulum, A Complete Survey of Pendulum Dowsing, by Karl Spiesberger - ISBN 0-572-01419--8 {{Please check ISBN|0-572-01419--8}} (Der erfolgreiche Pendel-Praktiker) - 1962 [13],English translation, pp. 13, 15, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78-82, 82, 83.

• Unholy Alliance: History of the Nazi Involvement With the Occult by Peter Levenda, (May 1, 2002, ISBN 0-8264-1409-5). pp. 230-232.

• Occult Reich by J.H. Brennen, pp. 111 and 112.

Documentaries

• Nazis: The Occult Conspiracy (1998), directed by Tracy Atkinson and Joan Baran, narrated by Malcolm McDowell.

• "Decoding the Past" Episode: The Nazi Prophecies" by the History Channel [14] [15]

• Hitler and the Occult by the History Channel [16]
• Keep In view of the evidence just listed above. DGG 01:52, 25 December 2006 (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.