Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham Lewinsky

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. Notability seems to have been demonstrated as the discussion progressed. It does however need attention and it should not remain orphaned. Bduke (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lewinsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

no sources at all, article does not state why person is notable - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 06:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Google comes back with 250 results all of which are about different people, or rather the time periods are all different. Delete per WP:N and WP:V ——Ryan | t • c 07:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely unreferenced which suggests it lacks WP:N Artene50 (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NN.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 09:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability is not confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence of notability, though in theory he could be if sources demonstrated that his works were notable enough.

Neutral per improvements by DGG that appear to demonstrate notability. I have no knowledge of the subject that would give me further cause for any opinion. ~ mazca ^talk 11:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article gives 3 published books--I have checked in worldCat, and there are at least another 3 or 4. They are in about a dozen WorldCat libraries, which for 19th century German books of the science of Judaism is significant. This is the sort of article that needs expansion andc hecking from published sources, not from google. I did quickly find some references to at least confirm the basic information. He's included in the main biographic encyclopedia in his special field. DGG (talk)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per WP:HEY, DGG has utterly refuted all of the delete arguments and there can be no consensus to delete now. MrPrada (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG's updates. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nineteenth century Judaic scholars are not well represented on google, so should be eliminated from Wikipedia. No matter how prominent in their field they are. Also, as one poster above notes, he has the same name as a bunch of other non-contemporaneous people so should get the axe or gong. --Blechnic (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment your response reads rather sarcastically. Per WP:SARCASM I'd suggest you might want to clarify what you actually mean to avoid an outcome you might not agree with! ~ mazca ^talk 00:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep This article has now been improved with 3 book references. However, we don't know the date of his birth or death of this person. The article is still orphaned. The additions do seem to address the central question: was he notable? Artene50 (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we have the birth. None of the available sources have the death. I've checked the LC authority file for this, and the Harvard catalog, and they don't have the death either. It would apparently take some primary research. DGG (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is notable for his works, not for when he died or for which Wikipedia articles link to his one, so the lack of his date of death and the orphaned status of the article have no bearing on whether it should be kept or deleted. You might just as well complain that the article doesn't tell us his favourite colour or his inside leg measurement. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DGG and, erm, tongue-in-cheek Blechnic. --MPerel 06:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.