Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazi hunter

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 of the debate was keep -- Samir धर्म 03:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi hunter

Deletenon notable group. No such group actually exists, or at least as an organized entity and thus is fictional. doesn't seem to be any real organization just a term coined by the author to refer to individuals who have a similar cause. Violates WP:NOR, borederline violation of WP:NEO as it refers to the concept as if it were actually an established group. Lacks verifiable sources.Strothra 16:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC) :I updated the article per the discussion below to make it more a description of the term. No matter what changes are made, however, still makes the article no more than a dicdef which should not be included in Wikipedia. Such articles belong in Wiktionary. Thus, my Delete vote stands. --Strothra 20:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updating this nom again as per discussion below and with another user. Article should be Deleted and moved to Wiktionary but a new list should be formed for Nazi hunters. --Strothra 03:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless any reference can be found which backs any of the claims. --so U m y a S ch 16:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe Wiktionary, but not here. Master of Puppets ^{FREE BIRD!} 16:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The term "Nazi hunter" is certainly well established, and not just coined by the author of the article. Searching "nazi hunter" at amazon will yield dozens of books around this title, even a "nazi hunter series".

Still, a category might be more appropriate than an article. --Aleph4 18:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is still a coined term which does not generally appear in the dictionary. See WP:NEO and WP:NOR. --Strothra 18:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEO ("neologisms") certainly does not apply. The term has been around for decades. Amazon.com and the Library of Congress both list a 1968 book "The Nazi hunter" by Bynum Shaw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleph4 (talk • contribs)

The term may exist as a grouping of individuals, yes. Nazi hunters however are not an established/institutionalized entity. They are, rather, a concept. This usage of Nazi hunters aims to portray them as if in an established organizational entity which is borderline NEO because it is not a common use of the term. --Strothra 18:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Many ghits and a number of people tagged with this label for their efforts in this regard. I believe the topic is quite worthy of its own page. — RJH (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits should not establish notability. Verifiable sources and references help to establish notability. Notability should be established in the article itself. You seem to be promoting the creation of this topic as a category rather than keeping the article. --Strothra 18:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A very well known term that readers might very easily search for. Contrary to the claims made the article does not say that they were a single group. Nathcer 18:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a very common term for a well-defined and significant activity. A search for "nazi hunter simon wiesenthal" in quotes yields more than 30,000 hits. The article explains the subject very well and does not in any way suggest that Nazi hunters are an organized group. —phh (^t/_c) 20:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per phh, Nathcer, and RJH. Article has potential for expansion. DVD+ R/W 20:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per phh, Nathcer, RJH. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Pecher ^Talk 20:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. They may not have had numbers but hardly an insignificant group in brining Nazi's to justice. Bryce 22:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't a group, they're a concept. --Strothra 22:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. —Viriditas | Talk 22:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are you kidding me? How is "Nazi Hunter" not notable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a definition of a term. According to Wikipedia's customs it belongs in the Wikitionary and not as an article. If you wish to make a list of Nazi hunters then that deserves its own list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Strothra (talk • contribs)

It wasn't "a definition of a term" until you made it so, in your edit of 16:20, 28 May 2006, a few hours before you nominated it for deletion claiming it was "just a term". I have now changed it back. - Nunh-huh 19:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the article, yes, but it's still a term. How are arguing that it's not? That's rediculous. I already proved that there is no such organization as "Nazi Hunters." It is not an established institutional entity and thus it a conceptual grouping of people. Nazi hunter is the term ascribed to these individuals who belong in this conceptual category which is precisely why this article should be a category and not an article. --Strothra 21:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a term, and it's a conceptual category, like cardiac arrhythmia or man or Jew. And like those subjects, it's not an organization, and still it needs an article. Keep. - Nunh-huh 21:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Clearly a subject of major importance for any reference work. -- JJay 01:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phh.--Shlomke 03:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, they are a group, a concept and a "term," and their efforts (in the aggregate, not just as individuals) belong in a comprehensive modern encyclopedia. 6SJ7 18:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. --Ben Houston 20:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, merits expansion Elizmr 20:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. - CNichols 23:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an obviously notable concept, I'm suprised the article isn't much longer. Grand master ka 19:34, 31 May 2006 (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.