Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Krauss

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. — CharlotteWebb 06:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Krauss[edit]

Not sure if notable or not.-- Luigi30 (Taλk) 03:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 05:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I was the user who originally nominated this for speedy A7. Considerable content, I believe establishing notability per WP:BIO, has been added since. --Selket ^Talk 04:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references add up to notability. --Eastmain 04:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable scholar of ancient Judaism; wrote the book on the ancient synagogue according to a later scholar, pioneer of Talmudic archaeology according to another. Thus passes various Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With addition of sources, appears to be a notable, scholar, mentioned in the Jewish Encyclopedia article and cited by various other scholars. --Shirahadasha 05:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as being a major editor of the Jewish Encyclopedia as described in article makes this person notable. By the way, this is the first time I have seen a nominator admit that they are "not sure if notable or not" -- for heaven's sakes, if one is "not sure" of anything about an article, the last thing to do is to nominate that article for deletion because AFD's are serious matters and are not guess-work games for people who know nothing about the subject they are nominating. Sheesh. IZAK 05:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it perfectly reasonable to nominate when unsure, and have the article visible, and see what the interested editors think. The alternative is to have people nom for prod, which gets much less exposure--or--very much worse--to simply list it for speedy and decide on their basis of their own partial knowledge. (Of course, another alternative is to not nominate the articles that one thinks dubious--this does not lead to the improvement of WP. DGG 04:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but mark as stub, there is more to this article Alf^Photoman 13:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep highly notable. David Spart 21:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable scholar. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.