Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shneur Zalman Friedman

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 Delete. It's a feel good story, but ultimately not encyclopedic - many rescues get similar coverage but BLP1E really applies to this, perhaps more so because the LP is a minor whose situtation was not entirely of his own making. Carlossuarez46 01:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shneur Zalman Friedman

Shneur Zalman Friedman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article about a young boy who had the misfortune of beeing swept to sea and then resceued. This makes a great news storry, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Apart from a very public resceue there is nothing particularly notable about his life, and per WP:BLP1E we should not have this kind of article. I'd say that goes double when the victim is a young child. Sherool (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment There are many people with Wikipedia articles solely because of media attention surrounding a single point in their lives. For instance Patrick McDermott, Ray Gricar, even Madeleine McCann. If all these articles are now to be banned then this is defiantly a subject for the Village pump. --S.dedalus 00:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes a lot of simmilar articles should probably be deleted too, however this debate is about this parricular one. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Sherool (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay, NOT a policy. The fact that there is a Wikipedia wide president for articles like this is entirely relevant to the current discussion. In good faith I am assuming that you genuinely feel that the deletion of this article would benefit the project, however I’m at a loss for why you targeted this particular one. --S.dedalus 01:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Google comes up with 1,960 hits for “Shneur Zalman Friedman”[1] and 3,230 hits for “boy survives” “Dead Sea” [2]. That sounds plenty notable to me! Furthermore this article made international news and is no less notable than many other disaster or crime victims listed on Wikipedia. As for the complaint that the subject is a young boy, see WP:NOTCENSORED. All assertions made in this article are rigorously backed up with sources in compliance with Wikipedia’s living person’s rules. In regards to WP:BLP1E this article is clearly of notable importance (especially given the world's current focus on the middle east) and as such it will clearly improve Wikipedia to Ignore all rules in this case. --S.dedalus 00:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Notability is not judged soley based Google hits and ~3000 hits on Google is not very much. Try a search on "S.dedalus", that's 1.600 hits right there, I hope that doesn't mean you'll write about your Wikipedia username next... Furthermore most of those hits are identical word for word, it's just a case of online newspaper publishing minor storries like this (unedited) because it doesn't cost them anyting to do so. See how many newspapers set aside page space for this incident in theyr paper editions and you might get a better indication as to how importnat they consider the case. Yes there are less notable articles on Wikipedia, but they can be dealth with in due time. You need to convince people that this person is notable not that there are other less notable people with articles. I also fail to see how you figure the attention on the political situation in the Middle East affect the importance of an article about an 8 year old boy who was saved from drowning just because he happens to live in the area. --Sherool (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The number of hits for my username is because I took the name of a well known James Joyce character, a character that DOES have a Wikipedia article in fact. See Stephen Dedalus. This boy is very notable. It was a unified search effort that required the involvement of Israel Defense Forces, Hatzolah, and ZAKA. It was also international in scale, the government of Jordan was notified to avert an international misunderstanding. This incident was highly important also because it is totally unique. At the time it was called a “miracle.” I believe that it is quite evident that this article is sufficiently notable to fulfill current Wikipedia wide standards. --S.dedalus 21:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this is WP:TRIVIA and silliness and violation of WP:NOT#NEWS as all kinds of things happen to people and animals and get mentioned in the papers but they don't deserve to be in an encyclopedia. IZAK 19:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • delelte he is not notable. Will there be news coverage when he gets married, has kids, dies? no. In fact there will not be any news coverage about any part of his life besides this one incident. He is not famous enough for any newspaper to care. Perhaps the incident is notable, but borderline so. If there is some article about children surviving in extreme circumstance, or about the dangers of the death sea, or about undercurrents in general, the story could be merged there. Jon513 20:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
See Search and rescue and Rip current. --S.dedalus 04:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Good things happen... oh Yes! finely we document good happy subjects, and if it is a public thing it should be here, i do share the concern that this is an underage child, but since it has nothing to do with his judgment or deeds, it should be here lets not censure here subjects becaouse some peaple don't like to read about it. if its public it is pubic, wikipedia does not censure public issues.--יודל 21:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Short-term news phenomeon, not wiki notable. Many, many people get into trouble and then get saved every day, thank G-d. There is no reason to have an article on each and every one of them. Avi 03:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Subject is not notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. Yossiea (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 06:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikinews: this is a well-written, engaging story that may be of relevance to a notable issue in future. Make the most of the contributors' work and document it at Wikinews. Optional: provide a suitable Award to the contributors for their model of high standard text, conforming to Wiki typographical, copy-edit and neutrality standards. Alastair Haines 07:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    Well that's one option, provided the license incompatability can be worked out, Wikinews uses Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 so we can't just dump GFDL licensed text there. If S.dedalus is willing to dual license this version of the article it could be copied over though. --Sherool (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree to dual license that version of the article under
Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 so that it can be Move to Wikinews. However, I still maintain that this article is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia as well. --S.dedalus 19:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Shmaltz 16:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment For clarity I’d like to point out that many votes for this deletion were obtained through the listing of this discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. --S.dedalus 19:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Which is perfectly acceptable, since anyone can be a member of the project or watchlist it; see Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly notices. Which is completely different from engaging in aggressively contacting individual editors whoe are believed to have specific points of view, to wit canvassing. -- Avi 20:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per Avi. And for the record: I have not been canvassed by anybody. Greswik 19:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per WP:NOT. Garion96 (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2007 (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.