Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josef Leipold


 * 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 redirect to Brünnlitz labor camp.  Sandstein  08:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Josef Leipold

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Apparent OR; no inline citations offered. The content should be presumed to be dubious / falsified. Created by Special:Contributions/OberRanks currently site-banned for fabricating content and sources. For more info, please see ANI:OberRanks and fabricated sources. Delete per WP:TNT. An option of "delete & redirect" to Brünnlitz labor camp is possible. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 02:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 02:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 02:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete essentially because the author is banned for chronic source and content fabrication. But even without that I'd be doubtful about the article's only source, a biography of Oskar Schindler, and the detail it allegedly provides about Leipold. For example, would Schindler really have documented Leipold's early life from before they met, such that his biographers could include all that information? Unless someone wants to read the book and check, I think we have to assume it's fabricated. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above. Schindler’s Ark by Tom Keneally, which first drew the world’s attention to the story of Oskar Schindler, barely mentions Leipold. YSSYguy (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Brünnlitz labor camp per above. Catrìona (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep this article was definitely not fabricated. The biographical information matches the same data on the foreign language Wikipedia pages and Leopold's career is further annotated in both Polish and German documents on file at the Holocaust Memorial Museum where is there is high researcher interest in him due to, as is pointed out here, how is barely mentioned in official texts.  This article is actually bookmarked in the HMM research room, which is how this came to our attention in fact.  Recommend a keep.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.177.31 (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)   Vote by apparent sock IP of User:OberRanks struck. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Brünnlitz labor camp per above as suggested. Kierzek (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Brünnlitz labor camp because Leipold had enough coverage that wouldn't require a stand alone article but a redirect is justified. Excelse (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg  jhp  jm  02:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment “keep because there is only scant information available elsewhere” is pretty much the opposite of how WP is meant to function. They may have similar content, but neither the Dutch nor the Polish article (it may be relevant that there is no German article) has any references either. The books found by Excelse contain only passing mentions of Leipold. YSSYguy (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The main thing that drew attention to this deletion was that the nomination stated the article was "dubious and falsified". That is almost fascicle, as Leipold was a major war criminal who was executed for his crimes and not only appears in the central database of SS personnel at the Holocaust Memorial Museum but also on the rolls of the 18th SS division as maintained by the Imperial War Museum.  A review of this material shows it to be factual.  It is also a bit disturbing that the evidence provided by the nomination appears to link to an issue with another editor and not an actual problem with this article.  To top of it off, this deletion appears to be happening on the tail coats of some wide spread deletion of SS and Holocaust material across Wikipedia.  For this article, however, he was definitely a real person, and there is histo5rical interest in his career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.177.31 (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody doubts that he existed, but the three extant WP articles (Dutch, English and Polish) are without references and no person has yet provided examples of significant coverage of Leipold - we have above what amounts to two databases that contain some information about him and some books that contain passing mentions. Notability has not been established; if notability can be established in the future then someone of good standing can create an article. YSSYguy (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, look, a sock IP of User:OberRanks. I was wondering when he'd start playing with those. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not correct that the Polish website is with references. See below. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep or Redirect to Brünnlitz labor camp: There are references besides those mentioned above ( and other material re: Schindler).  I looked at the Joseph Leipold Polish article and it has a Bibliography:
 * == Bibliografia ==
 * The first is the Polish.  The second  is English.  The second is on www.deathcamps.org (which might have its own problems on reliability ).  Deathcamp.org recommended www.holocaustresearchproject.org (HEART) (Holocaust_Era_Asset_Restitution_Taskforce).  A search on HEART showed  and .  I'm not that familiar with what is WP:RS in this field, but so far I am not ready to reject the idea that the subject is notable.  As for the facts in the article--I don't see evidence for many of them. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The first is the Polish.  The second  is English.  The second is on www.deathcamps.org (which might have its own problems on reliability ).  Deathcamp.org recommended www.holocaustresearchproject.org (HEART) (Holocaust_Era_Asset_Restitution_Taskforce).  A search on HEART showed  and .  I'm not that familiar with what is WP:RS in this field, but so far I am not ready to reject the idea that the subject is notable.  As for the facts in the article--I don't see evidence for many of them. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The first is the Polish.  The second  is English.  The second is on www.deathcamps.org (which might have its own problems on reliability ).  Deathcamp.org recommended www.holocaustresearchproject.org (HEART) (Holocaust_Era_Asset_Restitution_Taskforce).  A search on HEART showed  and .  I'm not that familiar with what is WP:RS in this field, but so far I am not ready to reject the idea that the subject is notable.  As for the facts in the article--I don't see evidence for many of them. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The first is the Polish.  The second  is English.  The second is on www.deathcamps.org (which might have its own problems on reliability ).  Deathcamp.org recommended www.holocaustresearchproject.org (HEART) (Holocaust_Era_Asset_Restitution_Taskforce).  A search on HEART showed  and .  I'm not that familiar with what is WP:RS in this field, but so far I am not ready to reject the idea that the subject is notable.  As for the facts in the article--I don't see evidence for many of them. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect. Per Excelse. Some data (I hate to see the loss of legitimate data), but not enough for a separate article. Den... (talk) 06:05, 13 October 2018 (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.