Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otto Fetting

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 of the debate was redirected to Church of Christ with the Elijah Message - no-one wants this content to exist on its own and it all seems to duplicate what is said in the parent article. Follow the redirect back if there is anything worth merging. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Otto Fetting

Possible hoax, if not hoax not notable person. ShigeruNomi 06:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: The guy's real, it seems [1] [2], but certainly not notable. --djrobgordon 07:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

*Delete; ah, the thing is POV'd up to hell as well. It presents this person's followers' beliefs as if they are absolute reality. I tell you... -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per djrobgordon. Merely having a series of divine visions does not notability bring. - Peripitus 10:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Church of Christ with the Elijah Message. Without being access the german texts listed in Otto Fetting in the German wikipedia it's hard to tell but I feel now that he meets WP:V but not WP:BIO as he has had no impact outside the church and the visions. - Peripitus (Talk) 03:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: minor member of a minor church, visited by a minor angel (top christians get spoken to by seraphs). --die Baumfabrik 02:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete! The article needs to be edited, is all. The dismissive remarks here about Mr. Fetting & the faction he headed are "POV'd up to hell as well." There's nothing about this entry that is a hoax, the basic facts can be proven, and are relevant to millions of students of Mormon-related history, not to mention the thousands of believers today who accept Otto Fetting's claim to have been visited by a major figure in Christian tradition. I agree the entry "presents [the writer's] beliefs as if they are absolute reality," and I agree that is unacceptable. Don't delete it right away, I'll see about revising it to differentiate between the facts (such as Mr. Fetting being born November 20, 1871, d. January 30, 1933) and what are claims or beliefs.
• Don't Delete! Me again. I only just noticed the German Wikipedia entry for Otto Fetting, and that it is superior to the English-language entry being considered for deletion. ((http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Fetting)).
  • This is a visual representation of the article's verifiability and notability: ______ -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Um...so you're still at that stage in the discussion? The verifiability and notability of Otto Fetting is established. I take it you don't read German. Either fix the article or delete it, but how about not using this as a forum to merely disparage a religious faction. Urban2
    • For one: the article is unsourced. For another: the article presents these beliefs as fact rather than encyclopedically (my largest problem with the article, still). As yet, no proof has been provided as to why he's notable, or in Baumfabrik's words: not "a minor member of a minor church, visited by a minor angel". -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes the article is sourced, especially by its link to the "Church of Christ with the Elijah Message" entry. For "another," I have said I agree the article is unacceptable because it presents beliefs as facts. I said it needs to either be fixed or deleted. In "edit history" check out what I submitted then withdrew, not sure whether it was acceptable either. As for your claim that "no proof has been provided as to why he's notable, etc.," yes it has. Glance at the German Wikipedia entry for Otto Fetting, please. And glance at the English Wikipedia entry about the modern church he founded, please. Thanks. Baumfabrik's opinion about what constitutes "minor" or "major" in the Christian or any related tradition, is irrelevant. To suggest John the Baptist is a "minor" figure in Christianity is not only arguable, but trashable, especially in the Eastern Orthodox view, which puts more emphasis on John the Baptist than the Western tradition. Articles about religious factions should be edited for verifiability and noteworthiness, not be a kindergarten exercise in "disbelieving" this or that groups' beliefs. --Urban2 | | 02:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Sources, not another unsourced Wikipedia article. The sources in that article are all primary sources, ie. sources directly affiliated with the topic in question. If this article can be properly sourced, then I fully support its inclusion assuming that it can be rewritten. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Vote switched to a Strong {Keep OR {Merge AND Redirect}}, for the heck of it. And Urban2, you can feel free to edit articles that are set for deletion, especially if you possibly render them less eligible for deletion... -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Vote switched from Don't Delete! to Delete or {Merge AND Redirect}} In lieu of the German-language entry being translated into English, I doubt an improved version will be forthcoming. --Urban2 | | 19:44, 6 June 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.