Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne "Marcy-boy" Fischermann

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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wayne "Marcy-boy" Fischermann, Colin Fischermann, Karl Johann Fischermann

No Google hits for any of these people. Delete as hoax. Pilatus 13:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: Once this is deleted, Image:Colin_Fischermann.jpg should be deleted, too.

• Delete wayne is a hoax, the other two are nn bios Ruby 13:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The claim that Colin has written some books is at least an assertion of notability. Unfortunately, they can't be found in the Library of Congress. Pilatus 13:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for being hoax/unverifiable and non-notable -- Aim Here 13:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Colin is not a hoax (read the discussion page) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.173.150 (talk • contribs)
  • Hmm. You met him and he is a "philisophical genius", huh? The way to argue on Wikipedia is to back up you claims with verifiable evidence. 82.26.170.64 16:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - figments of the imagination. Camillus (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, probable hoax, verifiability is lacking. Lord Bob 17:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. --Kinu 20:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep What do you count as verifiable? I have a friend who was taught by him, he is still in contact with others in his undergrad class, and I have also met them. That sounds like the most solid empirical evidence you can get; moreso than just looking up the guy on google I'd say. Because there's an awful lot of rubbish on there, hence it's a pretty poor criterion of credibility.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyhorsez (talk • contribs)
• Keep What do you count as notable? There are over 960,000 entries on Wikipedia, some/most on completely innane specialist topics, some not even existent. To say that Mr Fischermann is not notable is to make a subjective value juedgement i.e. you don't find what he has to say interesting. Well, I for one do. And, there is a large group of people (large enough compared to other things on Wiki) who have been affected by this man and find that his ideas are something special that should be shared. It is crime that he isn't more widely known, and that should be used in his favour rather than against him. Please do not delete.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.60.147 (talk • contribs)

• Delete Article admits that the subject is not notable: Unfortunately Colin's books were not widely printed and little known of and a few are even out of print Bobby1011 18:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with the person who raised the questions of verifiability and notability. I'd say being a published author and professor is fairly notable. I mean, I've seen far less notable stuff on this website here. The guy above's criticism is pretty stupid. He doesn't define notable and seems to give a self defeating argument. James Hanson.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.218.164 (talk • contribs)
• Delete as unverifiable, non-notable, and per plenty of sockpuppets. Stifle 01:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• KeepWikipedia says "If in doubt don't delete".".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.14.80 (talk • contribs)
• Keep I have been instructed by my tutor to research Fischermann for our course on St Thomas Aquinas so with all due respect to those who believe he is not real, I think you will find that in the study of philosophy he is, if not well known, of note.".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.14.80 (talk • contribs)
• Keep Read the discussion page. It seems pretty persuasive.".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.14.80 (talk • contribs)
• Delete all three as a hoaxes; all support here and on the discussion page are from likely sockpuppets of one individual. Edgar181
• KeepIs it me or are those arguing for the deletion not involved in any modern philisophical debate and just appear to be, with no respect whatsoever, ignorant. Fischermann has made important contributions to the debate on many of the areas of the subject that are currently attracting the most interest and I, as a Philosophy graduate am indebted to Fischermann as he has widened my comprehension of the subject. However I must admit that I have no idea if the part about the footballing son is true and that I suspect may turn out not to be.".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.14.80 (talk • contribs)
• Keep Having met up with Colin at a Westport reunion I find this rather amusing.".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.14.80 (talk • contribs)
• Keep I can say that yes I have read "Thomism-A well-travelled road". I bought it second, maybe third hand from an Oxfam in Pimlico. Maybe Pilatus would like to break in their and have a rummage through their accounts to verify my claim. I found it interesting as a passing fan of Thomas, and have been looking out for other books by the author. I haven't found any in these new chain-bookshops, however, after (by chance) looking on Wikipedia I've been given a new shaft of hope. Thank god this very intelligent man is still writing. So, Yes he does exist.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.218.164 (talk • contribs)
• Speedy delete this hoax and sanction the hoaxing IP. Ifnord 20:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• As sysadmin for the originating IP, I have investigated this matter and can confirm that is definitely a hoax. Please delete this and the two related entries. Rycherd 11:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep His seminal work on Gadamer? The piece was narcissistic at best, at worst... Still, this having been said, both mine, and the user in question's opinion were just that, and merit no inclusion in the article, unless one can find another Philosopher (preferably of superior renown to Fischermann) who criticise him for this. I seriously doubt that anyone here who claims to know Colin Fischermann is telling the truth, the stuff on "Marcy Boy" is ridiculous, I can find no reference to Karl, or any of his relatives at all (this includes the sleeves and dedications of his book, which don't mention his family at all for some reason.

What is more, is that this information, even if true, is utterly irrelevant to anyone beyond his immediate circle of friends, why was it included on Wikipedia in the first place? Basically, all the information on his family can, and should be cut as irrelevant, if not a hoax. However, Wikipedia should not be so hasty as to delete the entire article, the article, like his work, may have some merit in it. I think one can be reasonably sure it passes the professor test, and in theory is verifiable (Can someone upload the front cover of one of his books, or at least get me a digital camera (or not)? A photograph, like the one in the article, is not nearly enough to go on, I personally don't know what he looks like. I can see someone constructing a case for deletion based upon lack of importance within the philosophical and theological community, but constructing a case based upon the vandalism and hoaxing of one user as if that somehow condemns the entire article to being a hoax, utter rubbish! I am genuinely surprised he is not on Google, the name isn't misspelled, and from his ego-centric ramblings in "'Truth and Meaning' - forcing open Pandora's box?" he seems like the type who would love to get his name somewhere (okay, so it's opinion, it's not in the article, so I suppose he's fair game) I just looked at the deletion page, most of the comments come from one IP address, an address that has been engaged in vandalism before, and it looks like someone has been trying to get this article accepted as a hoax by creating inane additions to it. So basically, don't delete immediately, ignore the vandal, and wait for verifiability. When (if) the verification is provided, then take down the hoax tag, let users expand on the article, and then debate whether he is significant enough to have on Wikipedia. I think he’s important enough to keep on Wikipedia (just), that significant numbers of people know of his books suggests he was widely published, I’ll look into it.

• Delete I am system administrator for 195.172.14.80 (if you RIPE the IP address, you'll find it belongs to Westminster School, and if you would like confirmation you can email webmaster@westminster.org.uk). I have thoroughly investigated supportive contributions from this IP address following complaints, and I can confirm that these articles are a hoax which has been deliberately planted by a group of students in order to test the validity of the Wikipedia model. The students involved have been reprimanded. I recommend these articles are deleted immediately.
• If the message immediately above can be confirmed, speedy delete. Jonathunder 23:32, 9 February 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.