Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham Gancwajch

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator; article cleaned up, inappropriate sources removed, and proper sources brought. Avi (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abraham Gancwajch

Abraham Gancwajch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
  • Delete - Article was sourced to unreliable blogs. Outside of that, there is no verifiable notability. Avi (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - A one day old stub, already better developed than thousands of other stub articles on wikipedia. The leader of the notorious "Thirteen network" in Warsaw Ghetto is certainly a notable person. Feel free to contribute in a constructive way and expand the stub instead. Bad faith nomination (first remove reference, then claim "unreferenced" and immediately nominate for deletion ? shame on you Avi). --Lysytalk 16:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Blogs are not reliable sources; that reference was unacceptable. -- Avi (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Who said that was a blog ? --Lysytalk 17:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
http://www.lastsuperpower.net self-defines as a "established by leftwingers who support the war in Iraq.…This is a place for people who want to discuss what it really means to be progressive and left-wing in the 21st century - and where we can go from here." It is a discussion forum, which is no more reliable than a blog. Please see WP:RS. -- Avi (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Please consult the source first. This is neither a blog nor a discussion forum. --Lysytalk 17:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Nor is it a reliable source. Please do not restore it. -- Avi (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
First you claimed the references were from a blog, then a discussion forum, now you are saying it's not a RS. Still, I don't see the reason to delete the article. --Lysytalk 22:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • comment I agree with Avi that this is a bad source, but that does not mean that there aren't good sources somewhere else. Jon513 (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I have added a plethora of reliable books. The above site as well as [1] are not very reliable, but they can now be removed, as they are not sole references for any claims anymore.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment If the article's issues of sourcing and WP:NPOV can be fixed appropriately within the time period of the AfD, that would be an impetus to clse the nominations as "Keep - Corrected/Fixed". -- Avi (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Would you nominate any stub without references for deletion, or only this one. I'm sorry but it seems you are wikilawyering simply because you find the content of the article uncomfortable. --Lysytalk 18:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment. Can you more specifically explain what WP:NPOV issues do you have in mind so that they can be corrected ? --Lysytalk 19:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Unless the provided information is false, any stub deserves an opportunity to be examined and expanded. Otherwise this proposal smacks of censorship. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: When reliable sources are used, there can be a discussion. The article is not only using odd sources, but it has some of the infamous slur phrases like, "The allegation that he joined the NKVD has not been confirmed." Then why say it? "The allegation that you are a rapist and the killer of thousands has not yet been confirmed" is a way of unsaying it. The subject may be entirely valid, but the content is in no way valid. Furthermore, I'm not sure that a biography would be justified of someone who may or may not have done something and whose existence is undocumented beyond a certain point. Why a separate article instead of a listing of people in the article on the organization? You don't write a biographical entry until you have the biography. If you're speculating or contending over the biography, you wait until the material shows up. As for "why not leave it," the answer is that this is incendiary material. It's better safe than slanderous. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    Infamous slur phrases fixed. Would you change your opinion now ? --Lysytalk 22:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. References, and we have many articles about less prominent rabbis anyway. PS. As for more reliable sources, I am sure something from over 30 books here would be enough.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete this clear violation of WP:NOR, WP:BIO, WP:V a well as WP:NOT#PROPAGANDA. IZAK (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, leaning toward merge with Group 13 - Two of the 11 sources are not WP:RS, but nine sources is a good number for a short article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus has shown that Gancwajch is mentioned in more than two dozen of books (some of the Google hits are duplicates). On the other hand, it isn't clear to me that coverage of Gancwajch is more than "trivial" - for example, Itamar Levin, the most cited source, writes primarily about "The Thirteen", not Gancwajch. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Isreal Gutman writes ([2] - wrong link ?) even more about him by but that point I was too tired to add this ref in. He has some speculations on his early career and such.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep-notable person, described in books.--Molobo (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - References aren't based on blogs but mostly from many reputable books--YY (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - All specific concerns addressed. --Lysytalk 22:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I am pleased to see that the article is actually getting fixed nicely. However, sites such as http://www.jewishtribalreview.org and http://www.lastsuperpower.net are unacceptable. If you can replace those with reliable citations or remove those sentences together with the other unsourced sentences, I will consider withdrawing the nomination. -- Avi (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • As I wrote above they can be removed without loss of any content; I have verified all info with reliable sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks all. --Lysytalk 08:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above comments/improvements to the aricle, also as per positive news for a change regarding tolerance policy in Poland after Tusk became its new PM and it shows. greg park avenue (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per improvements, however, sources failing WP:RS need to be left out. --MPerel 02:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Although not a great deal is known about his life, enough facts to support a clear notability claim are relaibly sourced. That is enough to support a keep under WP:BIO. AfD is about whether the subject is notable, not whether the current article is a good article. --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - appears to be well referenced. Gatoclass (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - as shameful as it is the nazis could have not done it without the Jewish help they received and he was one of them. As for WP:RS enough good sources have been given. --Shmaltz (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2008 (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.