Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benji Hillman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 as the article has been moved to the Foundation, no action taken at this time.. - Philippe 02:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Benji Hillman

Benji Hillman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod. A clear example of Wikipedia is not a memorial. Fram (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposing to close AfD, as the page has been moved to Benji Hillman Foundation. I hope we can give User:Chaffchaff sometime to build up the article according to policy. I see that he is already getting help in this from User:Amire80. Hoping that my bold moves are OK :)Prashanthns (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep & improveI just did a clean-up using the existing material. He seems notable enough to have an entry, right? It was only the way it was written. I hope the clean-up will at least make the article workable. I declare that I have no interest in the subject itself and restored the AfD tag removed by the original author, before cleaning up. Prashanthns (talk) 10:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Per User:Chaffchaff and other suggestions, changing vote to Rename to Foundation with some re-write, which I am sure, User:Chaffchaff will do. Prashanthns (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unfortunately, this article makes no claims of notability. There is one reference cited, which links to the foundation established in his honor. The foundation may be notable if there are sources for it, but I do not think this article is. TN‑X-Man 13:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I just don't know. How's that for an unhelpful vote? Consensus at Wikipedia in the past is that soldiers who die in the line of duty aren't notable just for that; that is what soldiers do, and there are many thousands such, most of whom are covered in the news somewhere- we've agreed that soldiers who die in war aren't notable unless they are notable for having some other historical significance. There are sources discussing Hillman, like this one, which describe him as one of the first to die in this particular conflict. One of the first, not the first. Does that make him notable? There's the foundation named for him... does that add enough to make him notable? I'm honestly not sure; this is right on the borderline, in my opinion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Ddhuh...sorry for the minor point, but I was under the impression that we are debating WP:NOT and not notability. I thought that the general notability guideline already applies for this person, as there are hundreds of reliable sources that come up on googling his name. Is notability an issue with this subject? Prashanthns (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
That's the gist of Wikipedia is not a memorial- "subjects must be notable in addition to being fondly remembered." Lots of googlehits, but most of them just cover his death, without claiming special importance for him beyond that. Soldiers do die, in wars, and newspapers do report that they have, and it's very sad, but not all of them are of encyclopedic importance. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah...thanks for the clarification. Points about notability of soldiers and reporting noted. My feelings for keeping the article are coming down to a mere I like him(which is hardly a reason) but will keep my vote for now (for having invested in the clean-up at least ;)). Prashanthns (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

--Chaffchaff (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Excuse me but yesterday (nearly 2 yrs after his death) there were 2 radio broadcasts (IBA News 12:00 and Channel 7 16:00) and one television interview (Channel 10 07:00) about Benji and his posthumous contribution through the foundation created in his memory. As this is a one of a kind Foundation it is both notable and of interest to Israelis and Jews around the world alike. Basically the idea to have a page for Major Hillman is to show the positive , important impact his death created.--Chaffchaff (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Then chaffchaff, wouldn't you rather have a page on the foundation than for Benji? Prashanthns (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair question Prashanthns. I originally though about doing this, but after watching the interview yesterday morning and later checking online, I came to the conclusion that Benji Hillman will be imortalized by the foundation and not vice versa. This may sound like a platitude, but, even a one hit wonder deserves recognition as he created one great piece of work. In this case it is important to remember that this unique Foundation and project stems from one officer`s actions and beliefs in his life that have become the base for a National project. It is more than possible that a page for the project and foundation will be created at a later date.--Chaffchaff (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for all the reasons discussed above.--Chaffchaff (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Does not seem to meet Wikipedia:MILMOS#NOTE (which has tightened its definition of "a substantial body of troops", and I don't think a company qualifies). The Foundation is possibly notable under WP:ORG but that is not the primary content of the article. --Dhartung | Talk 16:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Dhartung - A company in this case is half a battalion, which is by all accounts extremely substantial in the military world (i am a former soldier). Please rethink your decision, a company is a large body of soldiers with a Major ( high brass in the field !) at its helm.--Chaffchaff (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment My decision tracks closely with the wording of the guideline, so I'm comfortable with it. I checked US casualties in Iraq as a yardstick. Four Colonels; fifteen Lt. Colonels; and fifty-seven Majors. I cannot imagine a situation where all of those individuals are notable enough for Wikipedia purposes; we would need something more. As it happens, only one of the four colonels has an article, and that primarily because William Wood (U.S. Army officer) was the first of his rank to be killed in Iraq, not for anything he did in command. Should Maj. Hillman have been awarded one of Israel's highest service medals, he would be all but automatically notable. --Dhartung | Talk 02:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Surely the Foundation that has been created to carry on his legacy makes him stand out, do you not agree ? There are no other soldiers from this war (that I know of), who have had National Foundations created to perpetuate their legacy. It is not only the bio of Major Hillman but his ongoing legacy which as become a celebrated national cause. --Chaffchaff (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
If that is the case per WP:ORG, then a sourced article Benji Hillman Foundation is called for. But notability is not transitive. --Dhartung | Talk 22:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Vote changed to weak keep on the basis of refactoring. Still needs serious cleanup to comply with WP:MOS and WP:NPOV. I'm willing to give this article and editor a chance.--Dhartung | Talk 17:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Deaths are sad, to be sure, and when young people die (military or otherwise) it's possibly even more so, but such deaths are not notable by themselves.  Frank  |  talk  16:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete the consensus has been that only Major-generals and up are assumed notable, not majors. Not colonels. Brigadiers (UK)=US Brigadier Generals sometimes, but not always. certainly not majors unless there is something special, and there isnt. DGG (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename - foundation is probably notable, and an article on it can include all the info currently in this article. Although, it should be about the foundation overall, and not Hillman himself. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Question If I dig up the info (from accredited sources about Foundation) and change the focus to be about the Foundation (but still include the existing information), will the Editors above agree to keep the article ? If so, I will get started on this. How can I change the name of the article ? I need some help how to proceed from here from some veteran editors. Please advise...--Chaffchaff (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Question to Editors who commented here - If I were to create an article about the Foundation , would you see this as an acceptable article according to WP policy ? Thanks for your feedback.--Chaffchaff (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • As it is, Delete, because indeed Wikipedia is not a memorial, as sad as it is. If it would an article about the foundation, i'd say Weak Keep. Googling its name in Hebrew (עמותה בנג'י הילמן or קרן בנג'י הילמן) comes up with some non-trivial results, but i'd like to hear a second opinion about it. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Newbie Question - So can I go ahead with a rewrite or do I wait to get an okay it will not be deleted ? How do I change the name of the Article ?--Chaffchaff (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. Article and talk page have been moved. If your account is WP:AUTOCONFIRM then even you can move pages using the move tab beside history tab above the article. Please do read the help page for moving pages. Prashanthns (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep newly added sources are good enough to establish notability per WP:ORG. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:07, 11 May 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.