Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham Reuel

Add links
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 no consensus to delete. On the side of deletion, it is fairly clear that Abraham himself does not pass any inclusion guidelines, as admitted by most of the commenters below. However, Dweller's point that Abraham's story might be notable is good, valid, and those favoring deletion come nowhere near refuting it. However, there is no discussion about whether the story is itself actually widely known or reported, so I am not willing to close as keep. Relisting is unlikely to change this result to delete, so a further week seems pointless. lifebaka++ 10:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Reuel[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
There is nothing remarkable about this. This is a very common name. There is a journalist of that name (polluting searches a lot), a politician, and there are four people of that name in the Berlin telephone directory. Hans Adler 22:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I'm trying to forestall "look how many hits his name gets in Google!" arguments (with the finding of the Miami article, you'll note that I struck through my suspicion of a hoax). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
The SF Chronicle is not significant coverage and thus does not attest notability per WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant to observe that Mbz1 created this article, I believe.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Delete. 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)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Whether he exists or not is mostly irrelevant for Wikipedia purposes. See WP:V.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Keep Story is notable. Whether it is true or not is an irrelevance for deletion procedures - it's relevant for editing. We have many articles about things that are not true: Humpty Dumpty and Piltdown Man come to mind. We have articles about them not because they're true, but because they're notable. We also have many articles about things that may or may not be true, such as Robin Hood, Creationism and Roswell UFO incident. Disregard your skepticism about the nature of the story and look at how it stacks against WP:V: it's a keeper. --Dweller (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one says the Miami News article isn't verifiable, only that the story fails WP:BIO among other criteria.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per WP:BLP1E. If this person ever existed, he's known only for his conversion to Judaism, and that only in a single newspaper article. This policy reads, in part:
If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view... The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.
The Treasury of Jewish Anecdotes doesn't pass the giggle test as a reliable source; it's a charming, cute book, but it contains ... well, anecdotes, not history or biography. ( Look at some of the other myth/legends/anecdotes it includes. Many are clearly apocryphal, the kind of things some parents read to kids around the fireplace before their bedtime. ) So do we have "persistent coverage in reliable sources"? Nope. We have a single newspaper story, which we have considerable reason to doubt.
No reporter has ever met the man. If he really existed he'd be an international celebrity. There'd be photos of him, television interviews, talk show appearances; The History Channel would have done a piece about him, there'd probably be a movie or two, multiple biographies, an autobiography, dozens of RS stories would have been done, and he would have been asked to speak at every large Holocaust Memorial event and large Jewish group event that wanted to attract attention. So maybe we need a policy for "Biographies of imaginary people who are known only for one event." We really do our readers a disservice to present this as a factual occurrence based on such thin and implausible evidence.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed my comment above. The truth of the story is irrelevant. --Dweller (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I read your comment. If you want the letter of the law, my objection was based on BLP1E. But since I doubt that this person ever existed, it seemed pretty absurd to invoke a policy about biographies of living persons. So I invoked a policy about biographies of imaginary persons. Re your "truth is irrelevant" contention, you've a right to make the statement, and I understand your basis for doing so. I just prefer that we not fib to our readers. If you feel a need to have a policy basis for that notion, that we shouldn't fib, go with IAR. ;-) Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also fails WP:BIO. This putative person has not "been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable and intellectually independent of each other". We have one newspaper article, documenting a claimed religious conversion. This is not enough to establish notability.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have two RS - a book and a newspaper. Our usual bar is two substantial mentions in RS. We have two substantial mentions in RS. As far as preferring not to "fib" to our readers - that's not a reason for deletion. Present RS that deny the truth of the story. Truth or otherwise is irrelevant - the article passes WP:V. --Dweller (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that we have two RS. The book is a collection of anecdotes. No references, no discernable scholarship, a lot of folksy tales about Jewish matters from as long ago as 1900 BCE. Anecdotes: not history, not biography, anecdotes. Oh, and did I mention that the book is a collection of anecdotes?  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Collection of Jewish Anecdotes does have a citation for the story, which appears on page 255. Specifically, the citation is to the February 1970 issue of "Jewish Digest", pages 47-48. Yes it is a book of folksy anecdotes, but the book does indicate that it got the story from a legitimate publication. GabrielF (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If by "a legitimate publication" you mean "a reliable source for this purpose", I would have to take exception. It's difficult to judge since none of has seen the issue, but it's my understanding that the publication you name couldn't have been any more unquestionably unquestioningly supportive of all things Israel while it was still being published. It's not the "supportive" I object to, please note, but the "unquestionably" "unquestioningly"; it was without a doubt a very ardent POV/advocacy publication.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please help me understand why this publication's editorial positions would be relevant to this case? GabrielF (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's rather moot since we don't have the publication itself, but I dont' mind answering anyway: I was imprecise with my description, and have modified my previous to more accurately reflect my intention. Take a look at a page from what calls itself the "successor publication" to Jewish Digest. It reports as fact that "Science Confirms What Rabbis Understood: Jewish Practice Makes You Happier and More Fulfilled". Read that article; no scientist is cited who has said any such thing. If the "predecessor publication" takes the same liberties with the facts that its claimed successor does ... well, advocacy publications can be reliable sources, but not if they extend their advocacy beyond editorial pages and let it overwhelm their factual reporting like that. Reliable sources don't operate that way.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uh huh, very scholarly. Of the seven times GS lists the book as having been referenced by others, two are the author of Treasury of Jewish Anecdotes citing himself, three are from some guy who self-publishes on lulu.com, one more is by a different guy who self-publishes on lulu.com, and the last one is to a legit journal alright, but it's an article about the value of using metaphor and narrative in psychological therapy. Of course it's not a reliable source. It's a book of anecdotes. Not history, not biography: Anecdotes. – OhioStandard (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep. Beautiful story. Definitely not BLP1E. According to the newspaper article from 1966, he spent 20 years working in coal mines and donating 2/3 of his income anonymously. Then he became an orthodox Jew, changed his name and moved from Germany to Israel. That's not "one event", that's a life story. This life story seems to have been all over the American press in 1966, presumably it was also a big thing in Germany and in Israel at the time (although we don't have any German or Israeli sources at the moment), and it was taken up by a book. In my opinion notability is established just so, and given the fact that there is actually an article to write about a significant part of his life there seems to be no reason no to have this article. (Shameless promotion of one of my articles: If you liked this story, you may be interested in the somewhat more disturbing story of Hans Ernst Schneider.) Hans Adler 16:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Hans. I agree it's a great story, but why do you say this "seems to have been all over the American press in 1966" when we've all been able to find just the one article?
I've searched multiple proprietary newspaper databases encompassing many millions of articles, and found nothing more, either. Nothing in ProQuest, GeneralOneFile, Gale, etc.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1966 was a long time ago, and only a few things from that era are digitised. This was a North American Newspaper Alliance story. Note that this was reported in the Miami News, with no apparent geographic or other relation to the events themselves. When I get home I will see if I find something in German newspaper archives, but digitisation in Germany is far behind. Hans Adler 16:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it'd be great if you'd check German language sources; thanks. The proprietary databases I mentioned go back as far as 1900, though. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Back as far as 1900 is not the problem. The question is, do they go forward as far as 1966? For the US, everything after 1923 is a problem because they would have to own or acquire the rights somehow. Unfortunately the German databases are even worse than I remembered them. Completely useless for everything that happened in the 20th century, except a few things before 1945. For me the big question is whether the story is (approximately) true or not. If it is true I have no doubt that it has been reported in various places and that he is actually notable. I will ask a friend who I hope has contact to the Frankfurt synagogue. As the story seems to be relatively well known, they might be aware of it, in which case they probably have an opinion about its veracity. Hans Adler 22:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reference desk volunteers couldn't find anything in German or Hebrew about this story. Re your comment about databases and 1966 coverage, about half of the newspapers included in the databases I named have continuous coverage from very early days to the present day, or close to the present day, anyway.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no mention of this story on any database that does not originate with the wire service article, which itself only quotes one person for this extraordinary story. I'm sure that article was picked up by more than the Miami News (entirely unsurprising they would have though there readers interested i this tale, by the way) the day it moved. Since that single story? No one, ever, reported a lick on it. No follow up, no obituary, no fleshing out of the story. The few low quality sources that repeat it like the jewish anecdotes book are entirely reliant on the original telling of the tale.99.120.1.227 (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've posted a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request for the Jewish Digest article which is the cited source for the Anecdotes book and also for a search of Hebrew-language publications from that era. I agree that English-language sources are very sparse but I don't necessarily think that means this is a hoax. Many people have WW2 stories that haven't been told, and the Nazi era was not as widely discussed in the '60s as it is today. Having said that, two sources is a very small basis for writing an article. GabrielF (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's my argument at this point. I originally nominated it for lack of notability, had a few minutes where I thought the story might be a hoax because it's a suspiciously common name and I hadn't found other sources, was cured of this misapprehension, but still think it's not notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also asked for help searching in German and Hebrew, at the reference desk. No hits found in German or Hebrew; two volunteers have so far found nothing in either language, although one commented that it was unlikely a boy would have "organized Hitler youth battalions" as A Treasury of Jewish Anecdotes claims. The one reliable source report we have does not convince me of the notability of any such person, or even that he ever existed. Based on the dearth of evidence for what would have been a world-famous story if it were true, it looks very much to me like we have another WP:OTTO on our hands, here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the sociologist were writing about the story directly, that would be one thing, but s/he's just quoting from a book by the same author as the Treasury of Jewish Anecdotes, the source isn't independent. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This fascinating article states that Nazi converts to Judaism are notorious for trying to avoid publicity. Perhaps that's why it's so tough to find articles on him. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, fascinating article, thanks for posting it. Other editors have suggested that should Reuel Abraham have existed he would have certainly been used as a propaganda tool. The Guardian article does an excellent job of demonstrating how silly this reasoning is. The kind of person who makes such a major life change as converting to a religion and moving to a new country, leaving his family behind, is likely too intellectually independent to become anyone's "poster boy" and the Israeli attitude towards these converts is clearly complex and multifaceted. GabrielF (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is also interesting.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin. There have been some last-minute changes to the article, starting with a string of three IP edits beginning at 15:01, 14 May 2011 UTC that resulted in his preferred version here. The article's creator, Mbz1 immediately reverted that, and after some back-and-forth she presented this version that included a ref to a Chronicle article that mentions the story in a single sentence. I objected to that, and presented this version, which is current as I write this. I'd also request that the closing admin please examine the policy basis for the !votes expressed here rather than just comparing relative counts of "keeps" versus "deletes".  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC) ( Last sentence added at 16:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC) )[reply]
  • Yes, that's right may I please ask a closing administrator to take a look at the language User:Ohiostandard used to justify its removing of the sourced information from the article: "I find I can't allow". Is this the way to discuss the article's content?--Mbz1 (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I originally wrote "I find I can't in good conscience allow..." but I expected that you'd ridicule that, too, given that you've repeatedly told me, as well as others who oppose your wishes, that we don't have any dignity. It really is pretty unseemly, in my opinion, for one of the most aggressively derisive editors many of us have come across to pick at others' language so.
If it makes you feel better, though, I don't mind restating: "I find I can't in good conscience allow the single-sentence mention from the Chronicle to stand. It adds nothing that isn't already present in the article from other sources, and its presence appears to be a kind of Hail Mary pass to shore up a claim to notability. A single-sentence mention does nothing to establish notability, however; its presence give a false appearance that there are three reliable sources for this story, when there's really just the one, the Miami News article."  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've made clear my opinion that A Treasury of Jewish Anecdotes isn't a reliable source for our purpose here: I concur with the IP above who observed that there's really only one source for this story, Rabbi Reuben Kahane, the ultra-orthodox rabbi who was a member of the Supreme Religious Council of Israel in the 1960s. I'll just observe here that I've expanded on this at article talk, and note that the a blurb for the second such book by the author of the Anecdotes book, a similarly "inspirational" book for Jewish readers, says of the stories that book includes, "Nor are they always verifiable. Some of the stories are folktales, others are exaggerations". Please see "A Treasury of Jewish Anecdotes" section on article talk for details.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first one: the Miami News article is the one source that works; no one objects to that, as you know. Re your apparent claim that the second one, the single-sentence mention of the story in the Chronicle shores up any claim to notability, well, we've all of us here discussed that at some length. My own most recent comments about that single-sentence mention occur above, where I refer to a "Hail Mary pass". I'd use a corresponding Jewish metaphor if I knew of one, btw, but I don't.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to the closing admin. Please note a delete vote by a proxy IP. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some evidence that the IP is editing via a proxy server?  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting subject that seems to be sufficiently supported by references, including those that are currently removed. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Oh look, one of Mbz1's buddies pops up again to approve a severely flawed article. Fancy that."
But to respond to the comment re the removal of the Chronicle's single-sentence mention of this story, I'll quote another user, from above, about that: "The SF Chronicle is not significant coverage and thus does not attest notability per WP:BIO or WP:GNG."
Also, it seems relevant to observe, since the fact hasn't been mentioned previously: As was also the case when Hodja Nasreddin showed up and supported her previously, Mbz1 is the creator of this article.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abraham_Reuel&oldid=1136114210"