Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaim Elozor Wax


 * 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, sources have been provided to establish notability. Just because an individual is not on google does not mean they are non notable so have discounted the final delete opinion. Davewild (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Chaim Elozor Wax

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

DELETE - content purely anecdotal, no supporting evidence or meaningful references, absolutely non-notable. Smerus (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't Delete - Both of the reference books are available in any store, I have one of them also in pdf, give your e-mail address I should be able sending it to you. Next time please be carefull before attacking. It is a very important article, and is still not complete. Shoteh (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.   —Visor (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep until proven guilty of hoax. Library reference has been given. For someone born in 1822 don't expect much on internet. Assume good faith. No consensus closing is OK with me. greg park avenue (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Two perfectly valid references have been provided to satisfy WP:BIO. I have difficulty in understanding why the nominator and another editor are dismissing these. Have you checked them and found that they don't actually support the article content? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The references (if such they are) cited are not clearly defined and are hence not accessible to me. Besides which, both would appear to be in Hebrew. Neither seems available in the British Library. The fact that they are unavailable, and, if they exist, in a little known language, militates against the criteria in WP:REF and WP:Verifiability; and in itself supports deletion. Your use of the phrase 'perfectly valid references' in this context seems, at least, debatable. But perhaps you have checked these references yourself and found that they do support the article? If so, please tell us.Smerus (talk) 09:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't read Hebrew either, so I have to assume good faith on the part of the article creator and any other editors who do. There's no requirement for sources to be accessible to everyone. However I do agree that the references were rather poorly cited without publisher information, and I've tracked down a book which has been been tranlated into English and has a chapter on the subject. I don't have access to the book itself but the contents are listed here. Part of the difficulty here is that each of the subject's names can be transliterated in several ways, making searching in the Latin alphabet next to impossible. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.google.co.in/search?q=Chaim+Elozor+Wax&hl=en&start=0&sa=N
 * Keep. There are online references with slightly different spellings: Rabbi Chaim Elazar Wachs or Haim Elazar (The Nefesh Haya) Wachs The differences in spelling need to be noted and the references included. --Poeticbent talk  01:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, perhaps we could get someone at he:wikipedia to have a look at the sources for us? Given the English language source provided by Phil Bridger, I'm inclined to believe that this person is notable, but if we can translate some of the Hebrew sources that could push it beyond doubt.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete Google search does not return any individual whose name is an exact match:

http://www.google.co.in/search?q=Chaim+Elazar+Wax&hl=en&start=0&sa=N. Hence fails WP:NOTABILITY - Ravichandar 02:32, 23 March 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.