Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsvi C. Nussbaum


 * 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. John254 03:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Tsvi C. Nussbaum

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Tsvi Nussbaum's only claim to fame is that he might be the little boy in the Warsaw ghetto photograph. The photograph itself may well be notable enough to have an article (an issue I have no opinion on), but Nussbaum himself, who might not even be in the photograph, certainly isn't. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 06:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete NN person. Even if that was him in the picture (which there is no proof of), I still wouldn't consider him notable.  TJ   Spyke   07:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Whether or not it is him in the photo, he has recieved attention. He was the subject of a documentary, we have a nicely referenced article, another nice looking article, an article on the photo talking about him a lot and a hit on Google Scholar I won't open because of my hatred of PDFs. I reckon he is notable. J Milburn (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obvious historic value even if he eventually turns out not to be the boy in the photo. Should we also delete every article listed in Romanov claimants or in Category:Impostor pretenders? &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-01-20 14:07Z
 * Keep, article requires referencing but with the links provided in external links and by J Milburn it has notability - Dumelow (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per J Milburn above. Epson291 (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * DELETE THIS FOR SURE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.154.16.30 (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep this for sure (even without the all caps). A rather strong claim of notability is amde, which should be expanded, not deleted. Alansohn (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In the article as it currently stands, there is no claim of notability at all, let alone a strong one. And so far no one has done anything with the references J Milburn supplied above. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 17:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the reference sgiven are sufficient, and discuss whether the identification is correct, and that's all that needed.V not truth--we do not have to prove it. DGG (talk) 05:50, 24 January 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.