Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham Reuel
Abraham Reuel
- Abraham Reuel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It's a lovely story, but because it only appears in one reliable source, "A Treasury of Jewish Anecdotes," it quite badly fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG, I'm afraid. (Note that the article has five references: two are to the same book, two aren't about Abraham and are only cited for the effects of the Holocaust, and one is a non-RS website promoting conversion to Judaism.) Nor does searching bring up anything else.
- update: Qrsdogg has one more. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
As a side note, if the article is kept, it should be moved to Reuel Abraham as the last and first name are currently in the wrong order. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note: Searching on his pre-conversion name gets a lot of hits for a completely different person, a Stasi spy.
I'm starting to doubt that this guy exists.Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Sourcing isn't great, but between this newspaper article and this book source I think WP:BASIC is reached, albeit not by much. Qrsdogg (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Two stories doesn't really cut it, in my opinion. It's technically "multiple," but I don't think that's really in the spirit of the notability guidelines. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep After Qrsdogg (thank you,Qrsdogg), found another RS, and I also found one more source (I honestly do not know, if it is RS, but the author, Marnie Winston-Macauley seems to be notable enough to have an article about her on Wikipedia), I believe this article should be speedy kept. I just added one more RS from San Francisco Chronicle --Mbz1 (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- A) I found that in my initial search, but it's probably not a reliable source and isn't significant coverage in any case, B) thanks for calling my attention to the Macaulay article, she seems utterly non-notable, C) no speedy keep criteria apply here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. Wikipedia is so adorable. There is really only one source for this story: Rabbi Reuben Kahane, an apparently ultra-orthodox rabbi and member of the Supreme Religious Council of Israel in the 1960s. This chestnut of his, which would certainly make fine fodder for a homily ("If an ex nazi can keep all 363 precepts of Jewish law then so can you!") makes its way into the Jewish anecdotes book (whose title alone should disqualify it from being used ever as a source for facts, or as wikipedia has it "factiness") and one or two other places, all via the wire service article from the 1960s (by a defunct wire that was believed by some to be a front for the CIA in the '50s and '60s... but i digress). Has anyone ever interviewed this man? Are there historical records/the work of actual historians to back any of this up? Any evidence than anyone serious -- anywhere -- has done a proper fact check here? No. None whatsoever. Which is stunning given the material. You'd think someone would have made a biopic by now! In fact, it's such a "neat" story of villainy, toil, and redemption (all three acts -- don't even need a Hollywood script-doctor to tailor the real history) that it's likelier that it was just a part of the Rabbi's patter. What to be done? There are thousands of articles like this on Wikipedia, written by people ignorant of what the work of history requires, and reviewed by the incompetent and lazy (this one of course was on the main page as a "DYK"). Deleting it is the right thing to do, but won't address the real problem.99.120.1.227 (talk) 01:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: I was rather skeptical of the story, especially after reading the nomination, but The Miami News article rather convinces me that this is legit and notable. The other refs probably aren't enough on thier own, but with the credibility of one good RS, they establish the bio as worthy of the GNG. It's thin, but good enough, I think. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 20:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is almost certain that no such person ever existed, what the North American Newspaper Alliance "reported" decades ago notwithstanding. This migh be helpful: Wikipedia:Otto Middleton (or why newspapers are dubious sources).99.120.1.227 (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Whether he exists or not is mostly irrelevant for Wikipedia purposes. See WP:V.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Whether he exists or not is mostly irrelevant." Wow. Just wow. Are you parodying the stereotype of the typical wikipedia editor deliberately? That a poorly sourced wire service article from decades ago exists doesn't "verify" anything. The absence of any follow up -- anywhere -- tells us something. No obituary, no interview (ever, anywhere, in any language) no death notice, no evidence that the wife was ever procured for him, etc... What it tells us (or at least people who know how to think) is that it's highly unlikely this person ever existed and, on balance, this article serves to spread misinformation, or, if you prefer, unknowledge. It is one of literally thousands of such bits of misinformation that exist on wikipedia, apparently because its editors are incapable of critical thought and don't understand the actual meaning of words like "reliable" and "verification."99.120.1.227 (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- While it was probably poorly worded, the point about verifibility is there, in that what is estblished in the sources overrides any individual editor's opinion on truth. There is no real reason to assume that the wire service article is faulty except for your insistance that it is not. The lack of further evidence is not evidence of anything in and of itself in this case (i.e. a logical fallacy in confusing the absence of evidence with evidence of absence). The Miami News is reliable enough to verify the claims in the article, and unless you can come up with something that suggests the cited news article is wrong, or to establish a reason why it would be suspicious no other records have been found (it's not uncommon at all for things like this to be hard to find, and something tells me that an exhaustive search hasn't been done with both governments in question), then you're just spouting hot air about our policies. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- A single wire service article from 40 years ago is the entire history of this story (then repeated in the anecdotes book). No other evidence that this man ever existed -- whose over-the-top hollywoodesque story was told by a single rabbi. And wikipedia morons consider it "verified." Proving without a shadow of a doubt this man never existed would require a flight to germany or israel and a few days of primary research (which -- oops! -- wikipedia doesn't allow, never mind the expense) but proving that he did exist simply requires a newspaper article from 40 years ago. Do you have any fucking idea how often newspapers are wrong, and how often sources fib to them? Did you read the article about the middleton's dog. It's... informative, but only for those with ears (and brains) to hear.99.120.1.227 (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Which rather proves my point: you have no way to prove that the source is wrong, and are not willing to take any further effort to establish "beyond a shadow of doubt" that the lack of online sources means anything. You have no idea if there is any further evidence this man existed or not unless you do the research, and claiming that newspaper are sometimes wrong doesn't mean that this one was with this story. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 19:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- A single wire service article from 40 years ago is the entire history of this story (then repeated in the anecdotes book). No other evidence that this man ever existed -- whose over-the-top hollywoodesque story was told by a single rabbi. And wikipedia morons consider it "verified." Proving without a shadow of a doubt this man never existed would require a flight to germany or israel and a few days of primary research (which -- oops! -- wikipedia doesn't allow, never mind the expense) but proving that he did exist simply requires a newspaper article from 40 years ago. Do you have any fucking idea how often newspapers are wrong, and how often sources fib to them? Did you read the article about the middleton's dog. It's... informative, but only for those with ears (and brains) to hear.99.120.1.227 (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- While it was probably poorly worded, the point about verifibility is there, in that what is estblished in the sources overrides any individual editor's opinion on truth. There is no real reason to assume that the wire service article is faulty except for your insistance that it is not. The lack of further evidence is not evidence of anything in and of itself in this case (i.e. a logical fallacy in confusing the absence of evidence with evidence of absence). The Miami News is reliable enough to verify the claims in the article, and unless you can come up with something that suggests the cited news article is wrong, or to establish a reason why it would be suspicious no other records have been found (it's not uncommon at all for things like this to be hard to find, and something tells me that an exhaustive search hasn't been done with both governments in question), then you're just spouting hot air about our policies. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Whether he exists or not is mostly irrelevant." Wow. Just wow. Are you parodying the stereotype of the typical wikipedia editor deliberately? That a poorly sourced wire service article from decades ago exists doesn't "verify" anything. The absence of any follow up -- anywhere -- tells us something. No obituary, no interview (ever, anywhere, in any language) no death notice, no evidence that the wife was ever procured for him, etc... What it tells us (or at least people who know how to think) is that it's highly unlikely this person ever existed and, on balance, this article serves to spread misinformation, or, if you prefer, unknowledge. It is one of literally thousands of such bits of misinformation that exist on wikipedia, apparently because its editors are incapable of critical thought and don't understand the actual meaning of words like "reliable" and "verification."99.120.1.227 (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Whether he exists or not is mostly irrelevant for Wikipedia purposes. See WP:V.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is almost certain that no such person ever existed, what the North American Newspaper Alliance "reported" decades ago notwithstanding. This migh be helpful: Wikipedia:Otto Middleton (or why newspapers are dubious sources).99.120.1.227 (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)