Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aron Bielski

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. Per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 01:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aron Bielski

Article concerns an 80 year old man who has lived in obscurity for some 60 years. As a teenager, Bielski was a member of the Bielski partisans, whose exploits were recently examined in the movie Defiance (2008 film). Article focuses on his arrest two years ago, which I have attempted to remove as unrelated to his notability under WP:NPF. This article should be deleted or merged with Bielski partisans, with criminal allegations removed. Stetsonharry (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article's creator). It's an interesting case, but I think the fact that he is a hero of a movie has gained him enough notability to make him, well, notable (we have articles about much less notable fictional movie characters, after all). His criminal troubles are well documented, and his role in the movie (and in the book it is based on) even more so. I particularly find it strange that Setsonharry first argued that the info on Aron should be moved from article on the movie (Defiance_(2008_film)) to the article on Bielski partisans ([1], [2] - this I can understand), but then removed the addition he himself suggested from that article ([3])) and now wants to delete the article about that person on question. While I do think Aron is notable, I could see his stubby article (until it can be further expanded) merged back into Bielski partisans - but the censorship of the information on his criminal record (here's another example) seems a bit too much.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Present in web pages including Israeli Yad Vashem and Polish Institute of National Remembrance as well as in many books and newspapers. Aron's old age (recent trouble with the law) is not an argument for deletion.--Jacurek (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; there seems to be suitable sources here, and the person is notable enough. Arrests for felonies carrying life sentences are things worth noting in a biography, and are objectively verifiable, at least in the US and most countries.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just to clarify, I believe this person lacks notability separate from his activities with the Bielski partisans, which he belonged to as a teenager, and as you can see there is a separate article on that. There appears to be nothing else to add except the arrest, which I object to under WP:BLP. If this article is allowed to stand, and if it does not simply rehash Bielski partisans, then this article will be a very short one simply describing his arrest. I think that would make it tantamount to an "attack article." An article should not exist primarily to disparage its subject. --Stetsonharry (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the above delete vote is by the nominator.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By your definition of attack article, Richard Reid (shoe bomber) is one. Arrests for serious felonies are serious verifiable business, and we're talking about one sentence, not the eight out of nine paragraphs RR gets on his serious felony.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not at all comparable. Richard Reid is a public figure and notable because of the attempted shoe bombing. Bielski is a non-public figure notable for his involvement in the partisan group 65 years ago, not for his arrest at age 80. --Stetsonharry (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I added a number of reliable sources. This is a stub waiting for a major expansion. --Poeticbent talk 20:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Weak article, notable subject. There are hundreds of Gnews hits for the individual, including quite a bit of information about him, all non-trivial mentions from multiple, reliable, third-party sources. For example see this article asserting he is now the sole survivor of the partisans: http://lohud.com/article/20090121/NEWS02/901210331/-1/newsfront Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep There are many notable sources without dealing with the arrest. A mention of the arrest is also appropriate giving it due weight (say a sentence or two, not much more). JoshuaZ (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: LOL the nom almost reads like "keep !vote" it's so comprehensive. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2009 (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.