Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boruch Szlezinger

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 delete. With the same regret expressed in many of the comments here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boruch Szlezinger

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I really regret having to ask that this be deleted, but I think it's required by our policies (I first deleted it as no indication of notability, but am restoring it for discussion in consequence of a heartfelt request at WP:REFUND [1] As I said there, I did not think this was anything distinctive in an encyclopedic sense, either as BLP or NOT MEMOrIAL. As it makes me really uncomfortable to judge such a situation, I consulted someone more knowledgable, who advised "It is indeed important that each survivor of the Shoah/Khurbm/Holocaust leave a record of his or her experiences, as Mr. Szlezinger has so properly done in permitting himself to be interviewed and recorded, and in leaving records at Yad Vashem. He may wish to investigate similar opportunities in France and the US, and for the sake of his family and for the sake of historical accuracy and honesty--particularly in light of the persistence of deniers of the truth. But Wikipedia does not appear to be the proper place for such important material. The experiences of Wiesel are included in the context of their other literary works, works that have been widely published and reviewed, so that there is no question of their notability. The experiences of an ordinary victim (and I realize that no survivor is ever "ordinary"--all are extraordinary, as my own parents were) would only be suitable for an encyclopedia if they have been presented in an artistic and literary form that has been widely distributed and reviewed." DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The Holocaust is an immense tragedy, but not every survivor is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Mr. Szlezinger has a reputation and a history that sets it apart from others. Mr. Szlezinger is one of the last Holocaust survivors, former prisoner of Nazi concentration camps, the last survivor of the death marches, he saved the first time his mother and sister to the hands of the Nazis during the Holocaust and then he lost his entire family before to find his brother in France. He gave an interview to Max Kohn for the Australian national broadcaster, SBS Broadcasting Groupt hen the interview was the subject of a detailed study in a large university. He works constantly to the memory of the Holocaust and its transmission. He was awarded "Large Invalid War" in Europe, "Policy Deported" by the French government. The deputy mayor and former minister, André Santini and the Defense Minister proposed to the National Order of the Legion of Honor. --ZzcommeZz (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC) — ZzcommeZz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - Would you be able to locate a reliable secondary source to verify the claim of being the last survivor? If so, then that may be notable by Wikipedia standards.ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes Sir ! http://www.sbs.com.au/yourlanguage/yiddish/highlight/page/id/127951/t/Interview-with-Baruch-Szlezinger --ZzcommeZz (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I tried listening but couldn't find any such claim. What time in the recording do they make that claim? And do you have multiple reliable sources to indicate it? Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. IMO, this would be an extremely difficult, if not impossible, claim to verify. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if true it could be verified, because the various news sources & organizations concerned with this topic would surely report it. Some day there will inevitably be such a last survivor, and at either during their life or at their death there will be appropriately reliable sources. We can't do the relevant OR. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Barring the discovery of significant reliable source coverage of the notability claim, I am now a delete. Should such significant reliable source coverage be discovered I, of course, am willing to change to a keep. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ConcernedVancouvert I do not know what source you want, you are really difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZzcommeZz (talk • contribs) 15:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It may be helpful for you to read over reliable sources to get an idea of what Wikipedia considers to be reliable secondary sources. Generally if you can find newspaper reports in multiple reliable news sources verifying the claim, or in books published by major publishers, that is a good start. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But I've already given you a source of great national radio channel SBS! Really .. an entire brothel for one small thing. It is a pity. I had more respect for Wikipedia.--ZzcommeZz (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ZzcommeZz, Wikipedia relies on verifying claims to make the best effort to ensure that things written on Wikipedia stand up to verification tests. A single interview where someone says something about themselves does not constitute a reliable source for a claim such as being the last survivor. Such a claim, if true, would likely be in multiple media outlets, books, academic journal articles, etc. More broadly I am unable to locate significant coverage of Mr. Szlezinger in reliable secondary sources, and I have tried hard to help you support your claims about him. Unfortunately the material just doesn't seem to be out there. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sir, if Max Kohn asked Mr. Szlezinger for a national radio channel it is precisely because it is the last survivor of the death marches still alive and he himself said in the interview. Max Kohn can not afford to say anything, there is a journalistic ethics to respect all the more when working in a radio station like this. Max Kohn, in addition to being a psychoanalyst is known and recognized as a lecturer at the University of Paris VII - Diderot (where he studied said testimony) then this source is considered a secondary source and allows verification of my written and then give this product line. --ZzcommeZz (talk contribs) 20:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep (I have been asked to comment, but am no one's puppet). I consider that being the last surviving witness of the death march makes him notable. The article is very poorly written, with far too many present and future tenses, where past ones would be better. This is probably the result of it being a translation on being writtne by a non-native English speaker, but that can be cured by editing. Much was made in UK of the last four suriving First World War soldiers. I think this cognate with that. The Death March was a notable event in the holocaust. Proving that a person was the last is always difficult; the query against that fact does not detract from my view: even if he is not the last he must be one of the last few. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 2 keep vs 1,5 delete. Now that we have been tiebreaker by a user, the vote is close and the article remains on Wikipedia conformity with the regulation.--ZzcommeZz (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and a lack of reliable sources. I tried to find some, but a quick Google search on "Boruch Szlezinger" -wiki shows only 10 unique results, with none really from reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's not Google that determines the reputation of a person even more in this category. Your vote is not appropriate Mike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZzcommeZz (talk • contribs) 19:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that Google determines notability - I said that I did a search LOOKING for reliable independent sources that indicated notability for this person, and I did not find them. Whether you think my comment is appropriate or not doesn't matter - it's not up to you to determine this, as you do not get to determine the outcome of this discussion (as you tried in this edit). MikeWazowski (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, you can read? Because the sources, which are listed at the bottom of the article as in all Wikipedia articles. On the blindfold, I deleted but I justified ... it yet you pretended not to see. --ZzcommeZz (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't be insulting - and don't call my additions of normal tags to the article vandalism, either. I do not believe the sources presented in the article are enough for notability, as most of them are based on primary sources and/or comments from Szlezinger himself. Again - this has nothing to do with what YOU believe. I do not believe there has been enough presented to establish notability for this person. I'm sorry you disagree with this, but you don't need to resort to uncivil comments and false allegations concerning my edits. Those will not stand. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, you are not calm down immediately if I should be obliged to call an administrator to block you. You reverse the roles here, stop the vandalism that you are operating. --ZzcommeZz (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have already reported you for your continued attempts to remove maintenance tags and AfD notices from the article. Feel free to report what you want, but you are the actual vandal today, not me. Have a nice day. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I am using an administrator because you do not stop vandalizing. --ZzcommeZz (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already alerted them. I would also advise you to NOT vandalize the notice board again. It will not help your case. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, regretfully. Szlezinger is not the last survivor of the death marches -- Elie Wiesel is still alive. Hence, the claim that Szlezinger is the last surviving witness cannot be correct. His story needs to be documented, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. --bonadea contributions talk 14:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Agree with MikeW above, sources are not sufficiently robust to fix notability. 94.195.187.69 (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2012 (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.