Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solomon Radasky


 * 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. Clear consensus that notability has been established - and that there are additional sources in-discussion that could be added to the article. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Solomon Radasky

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am not sure there is anything that supports notability claim Arthistorian1977 (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. Many survivors aren't notable. This particular one, however, beyond the USHMM coverage (in the article) has been covered in a number of books - and quoted - .Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, I will say that Solomon Radasky is not as tier 1 notable individual like Elie Wiesel, but not reaching that level of fame does not exclude him from being considered for notability or worthy of his experiences to be included. Yes simply being a survivor does not make you notable, agreed, but having your stories published, included in the Holocaust museums, and included in journal articles, and newspapers from what I understand is notable. This article was created as part of the follow-up research from an Edit-a-thon to expanded under-represented individuals about holocaust survivors on Wikipedia. The individual did research, and asked me to revise it and after seeing some of books listed above, plus (sorry it is not showing up on google books for a preview) and a journal article on Jstore  I felt this warranted as consideration as all the checkboxes I feel were needed to be checked were checked when looking at coverage of the person's life. I did ask the question of if there was any media coverage on the individual, which is not necessary but also helps establish notability. The results were not in English, but still published in a foreign press/newspaper . That only thing I could not establish for notability is that he did not publish his own book or memoirs, but that does not exclude him from being notable as others covered his story for him and many survivors are not authors. It is absolutely true that many individuals do not even rise to a level of notability worthy of a Wikipedia article, but I put some time into this because there was in fact coverage from a man who died almost 15 years ago.Kayz911 (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The article could be improved to include some of the citations mentioned here and listed in the Interview with Radasky section, but there are sufficient sources to establish notability. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears notable to me. I converted some books to formatted footnotes; it looks like they should be reviewed for self-published sources, not sure all of them are worth keeping. But overall it appears that notability is well established by a diverse array of sources, and I'm not sure why this was nominated in light of WP:BEFORE. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable Holocaust survivor. I've added a bit about his prominent involvement in a protest against American Neo-Nazis in 1961, surprisingly not covered at all before.--Pharos (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I am adding my name to the list in favor of keeping this article, but I think it is already clearly established that this meets notability guidelines. Echoing what others have said here, this article probably could use more content and cited sources. However, that's not a notability problem - the article simply needs to be expanded. Given that is was created at an edit-a-thon event it is a good start for a new editor and we should be encouraging them to add to the article, not trying to delete it. Frankcjones (talk) 01:00, 7 December 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.