Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Barnett Abrahams


 * 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. Seems like there are legit claims that sources exist, not all of which were contested, confirming that the topic meets WP:GNG. An overlap in interests per se is a weak claim to non-independence; a direct conflict of interest or a relationship is what is usually meant by that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Louis Barnett Abrahams

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG – no claim to notability made, school principals aren't inherently notable. The article was deprodded with the suggestion that the Jewish Encyclopedia was an independent source. I would disagree with that. The Candlestick-maker's Encyclopedia might be a reliable source about a certain candlestick-maker, but per WP:IS it's not an independent source, as it has a vested interest in the subject of the article. Even if you do accept that volume as an independent source, it appears to be nothing more than a version of Who's Who, as evidenced by one of the succeeding articles, which is four sentences long. It certainly doesn't provide evidence of the subject's notability in the wider community, as required for Wikipedia.  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  16:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * delete fails WP:GNG. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Fellow appears to have born twice; I'd always seen being born-again as belonging to a different religious tradition. Anmccaff (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure how the second birthday crept in but I removed it; the sources appear to agree on 1839 as the correct year. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Everyone in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is notable, and his inclusion in this, the Jewish Encyclopedia, and the Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History  meets the requirement of WP:GNG for multiple in-depth reliable independent sources. As for the nomination's claim that having overlapping interests makes a source non-independent: it is to laugh. Independence, in this context, means that the source had no direct financial or personal connection to the subject, which is as far as I know true. If we could only use sources that were uninterested in our subjects, we'd have very little to write about, because the mere existence of a source would call into question its independence (why did they write about that subject unless they found it of interest?). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think, though, that the nominator does have a point -any- in-group notability can be magnified, inside the group, whatever the group may be. I can't see how that might apply to the DNB, though. Anmccaff (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Locality or specialization of a source can definitely sometimes be an issue — we don't tend to give much weight to small-town newspapers reporting on locals — but that's a very different issue from saying that a source is not independent. I tend to agree with Nsk92's reading of this comment: to say that only non-Jews can be neutral and independent about people who happen to be Jews is outright offensive, on par with saying that only men can be neutral about people who happen to be female or that only white people can be neutral about racism. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Update. There's an obituary of him in The Times, fragmentarily visible here. I haven't added it to the article because I don't have subscription access or some other source where I can read it, but I this strengthens the already-clear case for WP:GNG. Also, his retirement made newspapers as far away as Indiana . —David Eppstein (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have access to the Times obit and I added a ref to it. Nsk92 (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have "clipped" the article here; if I understand the newspaper.com license correctly, the clipping should be visible to everyone. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is, thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using the Jewish Encyclopedia as an independent source. It is a topical encyclopedia on a broad topic. Similarly, it would be perfectly find to use, say, a Mathematical Encyclopedia as an independent source for a Wikipedia article about a mathematician, unless there was actual close connection between that mathematician and the publishers of that encyclopedia. So to suggest that the Jewish Encyclopedia should be excluded as independent source for Louis Barnett Abrahams because he is Jewish is absurd. More than that, it's offensive. David Eppstein makes a convincing case above for why the subject satisfies WP:GNG. There are additional sources if one cares to look for them. E.g. there is an obituary about him in the 1919 edition of Burke's The Annual Register. A search for his name in the archives of The Jewish Chronicle returns several hits, including a  May 6, 1938 article referring to him as "correspondents remember that Louis Barnett Abrahams, famous headmaster of the Jews Free School, London...".  Also a short article  about  the presentation of several portraits, including his. Etc. Certainly passes WP:GNG by over a mile. Nsk92 (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, he is extensively covered in this book. Nsk92 (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable school principal. Article is literally a direct copy of this. Wikipedia is not a repository or a mirror, take it to WikiSource. &#161;Bozzio&#33; 04:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources is an official Wikipedia policy. &#161;Bozzio&#33; 05:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's about including quotations in articles. It is irrelevant to the question of basing the actual text of an encyclopedia article on another (old enough to be public domain) encyclopedia article, something we used to do a lot more regularly. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In any case I have now completely rewritten the article so that it is no longer a quote from another source. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * How did you figure that he is not notable? He is specifically covered in the Jewish Encyclopedia, in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, in the "Palgrave dictionary of Anglo-Jewish history", there is an entire chapter about him in the book of Gerry Black "JFS : the history of the Jews' Free School, London since 1732", there is a published obit in The Annual Register, and so on. How is he not notable again? Nsk92 (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The subject appears to be notable. If Wiki had been invented while he was still alive, with his credentials, he would most likely have been included.  Three books, etc.  We forget that Wiki is very biased to the late twentieth century when online sources became widely available.  I think it would be easier to edit away from any close paraphrasing (or "copying") than to argue.  I'm an admin & crat on Commons, we are trying to find a picture for this article which is how I found the discussion. Cheers!  Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2016 (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.