Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maurice Frydman


 * 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The result was   Keep (non-admin closure), The nominator has withdrawn the request for deletion and there is a good consensus to keep this article as notability has be shown by reference number four. Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review 13:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Maurice Frydman

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

Bio of a non-notable author. Also, no reliabe sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I count five references, and a number of claims to notability. --Eastmain (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Ism is over-reaching by quite alot with this one. 274 Google Books results, including some interesting references in books by notable authors, such as Ved Mehta. 34 Google Scholar results. Obviously notable, and arguably a bad faith nomination. ~ priyanath talk 02:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep No reliable sources? There're five of them. As a frequent visitor to AfD, I assume that Ism just had a misfire here. Sometimes it happens to me too. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 02:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply I also saw these sources listed and claims that were impossible to verify. The problem is that the four sources listed in the article are personal websites of different groups. The only other source has not been shown to be relevant. Also, the book he authored is non-notable per past Afd discussion in which it was deleted as a non-notable book. Also, the claim that he founded the Polish-Indian Library is not verified, as another person founded this library - Wanda Dynowska. The claim that she founded this library is possible to verify. In all, these claims to notability are only claims and they have no reliabe sources to back them up. As such, these claims to notability are impossible to verify. This article is about a non-notable person and has no reliable sources to back up claims to notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If reliable sources are provided that back up claims to notability, I will gladly change my vote to keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's one that makes for interesting reading and confirms some of the claims in the article. Between this (University of Pennsylvania Press) and the Mehta book, there is no doubt this article should, and will, be kept, no matter what your vote. ~ priyanath talk 02:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It would not hurt this article if reliable sources and claims to notability were added. The source above is a start. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability has been proven. Speedy Keep for that reason alone. If someone wants to also improve the article by adding information from these sources, all the better. ~ priyanath talk 03:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As you stated above - if anyone wants to improve the article - this is a good place to start. Of course, stating that notability has been proven - and proving notabilty - are two seperate things. Hopefully, these will be established in time. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep A good faith nomination, perhaps. But, the present list of refs (with a book included) and the discussion above illustrates notability for me. This is also a good secondary reference regarding a discussion with a notable Indian philosopher, J Krishnamurthi. I vote to keep. Prashanthns (talk) 04:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Of course. There was already a solid, reliable source in the article for the claims to notability in the article,  which have been corroborated by Priyanath's book citation (among many others at google books) - Lives of the Indian Princes.  One can verify that Frydman's name appears in this book, unfortunately on a restricted page.  There is no requirement that statements be verifiable instantly on the web. That the claims in the article would not prove notability, once verified, as they have been, is absurd.  If one doubts properly cited statements, then  proper courses are to tag them or check them with other sources or to go to a library and get the source provided, not taking things to an AfD.  There is no reason to suspect the Nisagardatta book is not an RS either; notability is not the same thing as reliability, and the websites have to be examined on a case by case basis to determine reliability -two of them are just convenience links for print sources. AfD is supposed to be the last resort, not the first one.John Z (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources listed are good; passes WP:Notability. BWH76 (talk) 09:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Is notable, and has reliable sources. Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  14:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable as per [Ref 4]. Forefather of Indian Constitution as our Independence Proclamation undersigners once in 1776 were. Never heard of him before, but until this ref is contested we must assume good faith as per WP:AGF. greg park avenue (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to closing Admin Per greg park avenue's comments above, nominator changed vote to keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:03, 30 July 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.