Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Rutledge Birnbaum

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 DELETE —Whouk (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Rutledge Birnbaum

I de-prodded this; original prod said "Not notable, Not verified, speculative." I think that's open to opinion in this case, so I'm bringing it here. This person has a (somewhat pedestrian) claim to fame, and there IS a reference, it's just not online. I say delete, because I don't think the claim to fame is something worth having in an encyclopedia; it's trivia. Mangojuice^talk 19:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Golden_Gate_Bridge#Suicides; a short mention will do. Extraordinary Machine 20:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• I had several reasons for posting this... however, I must say, I think the article has a neutral point of view, is verifiable through the references provided, is not original research, and does not violate any copyright... how does this article meet the criteria for deletion? I did not see a criterion that said `trivia' could be deleted, and if `trivia' is a criterion, 99.9% of Wikipedia and all encyclopedias could be tossed out... things one is uninterested in usually appear to be trivia... back to Ms. Birnbaum... her tragedy is poignant because it illustrates the tenacity with which she pursued suicide. I don't care one whit about a `claim to fame,' that is not why I posted it... I posted it as hard data that our society's power to intervene and understand can be very limited. I don't think space is much of a limitation at Wikipedia, so I'm puzzled by a desire to delete even though I can see the viewpoint that this is trivia. I also feel that Piedmont, California is a pressure cooker for young people, and this example is important feedback for Piedmont to back off a little. I thought the main criteria was *verifiability*, and that is why there are references to 3 newspaper articles... should I scan them and post them in the article? Finally, this topic is topical, due to the recent film The Bridge (documentary film).... OK, I read the guideline on `notability,' and I must say I disagree with it... when petabytes of space are available, I think one can be liberal about what is given an article, particularly when the information is verified, neutral, not original research, and does not violate a copyright.Snugspout 23:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The more you speak, the less you say. Danny Lilithborne 01:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no merge. This stretches the limits of credulity - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, second jump never verified. speculating to motive if event actually happened, difficult to verify sources. Lack of online sources reinforces the lack of notability and hoaxiness.--Paul E. Ester 05:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Refs are available in print and I have little doubt that this would be treated as an easy keep if it had happened in 2005 or 2006 instead of 1988. Everyking 10:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Actually, the LA Times article is online, LA Times just wants $3.95 for it (added a link) ... but a brief abstract of the article is free. Or, if you have access through a library to Proquest, the full text is available. I read the `Importance' debate, I'm in the Wikipedia is not paper camp, and I agree that obscurity is actually a virtue... there are a gazillion web pages on `Important' topics. Most difficult is... was this a hoax perpetrated by the young lady herself? Answering that would require original research. Snugspout 15:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Survivors of sucide attempts are a dime a dozen. Cacophony 16:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nobody else seems to write about her so why should we? The mention in the Golden Gate Bridge article is sufficient. joturner 01:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Golden Gate Bridge#Suicides Kershner 14:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. Local news section cites in a local newspaper qualify as "trivial" in my book. There has been mention of a documentary here, but I see no indication Ms. Brinbaum was actaully mentioned in said documentary. If it were demonstrated that there was some sort of lasting societal impact from her supposed suicide leap I would probably opine differently.--Isotope23 14:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • LA Times is actually not a newspaper local to the SF Bay Area, where the jumps occurred. I first read about Ms. Birnbaum in Feb. 1988 when I lived in Europe, where I read the story in the International Herald Tribune, which is not a local newspaper; but its online archives only extend to 1991. snug 21:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Verifiable has to mean there is something significant to verify. My cat is up-to-date on her rabies vaccine (verifiable online to anyone). This does not make her notable as a vaccinated cat. Ted 18:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Wikipedical 02:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- what's wrong with having trivia? Wikipedia is not paper. It's NPOV, verifiable, references, what's the problem? Jumping off the Golden Gate bridge, like, say, going over Niagra Falls in a barrel, is just one of those things that strikes a chord in society. What negative exists by including this? -- Sholom 21:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Someone who goes over the falls and lives is encyclopedic, someone who goes over and dies is rarely so. And if such an individual was encyclopedic their content would be better relegated to a page about going over the falls (which exists) or committing suicide from the bridge (which exists) and not for themselves. To put it another way: No one will ever search for this individual. They are not notable. The event might be notable and might be searched for. As such, the event deserves an article (potentially), but not the individual. Kershner 21:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Ms. Birnbaum actually jumped from the bridge and lived... one of, I think, 26 documented cases... and then came back and jumped again (probably)... the only documented (alhtough imperfectly documented) such case. I searched for Ms. Birnbaum in the LA Times archive and the paper index to the SF Examiner to develop this article; I would estimate that a few people a year would search for her: a small number, but not zero. snug 13:49, 20 June 2006 (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.