Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Praimnath

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 keep. Jaranda wat's sup 23:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stanley Praimnath

Stanley Praimnath (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:Bio. Surviving 9/11 certainly doesn't make you notable, and there's nothing else he has done. Article is poorly sourced and has a link to his home page for no apparent reason. He is not a notable person and should not have his own article. Please note that while his name has appeared in the media, it was trivial in mention, and he is not notable. Titanium Dragon 00:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete. This article says he was the "only survivor from the impact zone". And the number of trivial media mentions is so high that you'd think that he's at least on the fringe. But still, he falls under the category of "famous for only one thing". Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
He isn't the only survivor from the impact zone; there were 13 others, along with 4 other survivors from above the impact zone. And surviving a terrorist attack or natural disaster does not make you notable. Titanium Dragon 01:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like to suggest that, as the nominator, you have a special responsibility to make sure your comments here are accurate. In your nomination you described him as a mere 9/11 survivor. In this followup reply here you acknowledge that he is one of the limited number of survivors from the impact zone If you knew he was from a much more limited group why did you describe him merely as a 9/11 survivor?
Because it is, as they say, completely irrelevant. Surviving something doesn't make you notable. Even if he was the ONLY survivor, he wouldn't be notable because that doesn't make you notable. If he wrote a bunch of books about his survival, then he would be notable. But surviving alone doesn't matter at all - it is mentioned in the main article, where it belongs. He is not notable enough on his own to make an article for him. Titanium Dragon 22:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, thanks for trying to address the issues a little more fully. However, this is what my pure math friends back at University would call a "proof by assertion". You still aren't really saying why you don't accept that survivors like Clark and Prainmath are notable. When we have people about whom articles can be written, which comply with the wikipolicies of WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:NPOV, why the heck should we make readers who want to find out about these people go to some other article? What best serves the reader who wants to find out about them is individual articles about them? My belief about the most desirable futuree direction of the wikipedia are at odds with yours. But I have tried to offer reasoned arguments for my position. I really wish you would try to do the same, instead of repeating "they just aren't notable". Geo Swan 14:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • You state that 13 others survived the impact zone. That's interesting. Who are they? This is something people want to know. Our discussion here proves the need for this article, and articles about the other, most notable survivors and victims.
If you actually read other articles on 9/11, you'd know that this is in those articles, WHERE IT SHOULD BE. He doesn't deserve an article because he isn't notable, and it is already in the main 9/11 attacks article and/or the Survivors of 9/11 article (assuming that survives its AFD). Titanium Dragon 22:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I am still waiting on those 13 other names. Geo Swan 14:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • You state there were four other survivors from above the impact zone. That too is interesting. Who are they? My reading of this topic is that Prainmath was one of the four, not that there were four in addition to him. As above our discussion here proves the need for this article. Geo Swan 01:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't matter. Wikipedia is not a repository of lists. Surviving is not relevant because it doesn't make you notable unless you do something actually notable. If he has made a career out of it (something not obvious from this article at all) then -that- needs to be included, but if all he did was survive then it doesn't matter a whit. Titanium Dragon
  • I am still waiting on those four other names. Geo Swan 14:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - if he were the only survivor, then there might be some cause for this article. But he's not. Oli Filth 01:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • No, he is not the sole survivor. But given that almost 3,000 people died, and only four survived from above the impact zone, I think it would be fair to describe him as almost the sole survivor. 01:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Just surviving a terrorist attack does NOT make you notable, nor does suriviving a school shooting or anything else. Or dying in one, for that matter. Pages of such people have been deleted time and again. There are appaently a whole group of such pages, and I'm going through and nominating all such pages which need to be deleted. Titanium Dragon 01:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Geo Swan 01:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Prainmath and Clark weren't mere survivors. They were survivors who found a damaged but still usable stairway connecting those trapped above the impact to safety. Their survival demonstrates that, with better communication, the several hundred victims who thought they were trapped above the impact all had a chance at survival.
    • I agree that the article could do with a couple of hours work, supplying it with better sources. I urge those voting to delete today to return in a couple of days, and see if they still think the article merits deletion.
  • Keep - You would think that surviving 9/11 would not make you notable. However, it is hard to explain why so many news agencies all over the world would write and continue to write about Stanley Praimnath, or why others would make movies and documentaries about him. "TV Ireland: Drama 9/11 The day the world changed." "Heroes Among Us, Miracles Around Us" (based on "Plucked from the Fire" by Stanley Praimnath). In any event, it doesn't really matter from Wikipedia's perspective. There is enough reliable source material from which to write a Wikipedia article that meets Wikipedia article standards policies. -- Jreferee (Talk) 03:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Are these notable? Do these have articles? Or are these random things that were produced that didn't get articles? There's a lot of memorial junk about 9/11, but not all of it is notable. Titanium Dragon 22:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep surviving from the 81st floor is notable. go read the articles and see why. But its not we who have to judge. The judgment is done my the public, mediated by the media. That's their job. ours is to recognize the fact and include what the world thinks notable. DGG (talk) 04:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Passes WP:BIO per notability. Between the Arizona news article and this CNN profile, there are at least two focused profiles of the subject in reputable news sources just from the first page of a google search of his name. In other words...multiple non-trivial secondary sources. Those articles are about the individual himself, not "survivors", and there it is. The article needs to be sourced, but the sources are obviously out there. -Markeer 13:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Thing is, this is largely trivial. Why? Because he isn't part of the historic record. No one will know or care who he is in 20 years. He was simply a random guy who survived. If you read WP:Bio, and look at other things (such as WP:Pornstar) you'll realize that his mention is, in fact, trivial. The reason is that he isn't important. All he did was survive. He was mentioned and interviewed for surviving. That is, as far as I can tell, -it-. He has been interviewed a few times (but mostly, 2002, with the only other one outside of the year afterwards being a brief appearance in a 2005 film about important news events from the last 50 years, as a random guy in it regarding 9/11. This does not establish notability; huge numbers of people have been interviewed by the news or had their names appear in news articles, and most of them don't have Wikipedia aticles because they aren't notable. Porn actors who appear in multiple pornography works are not notable, so this guy definitely isn't as he is even less notable. Also, the age of the coverage seems to indicate he is not and never will be an imporant part of history. Titanium Dragon 22:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
      • My pure math buddies would mock you for using "Proof by repetition". WP:NOT says "wikipedia is not a crystal ball". Your contention that he will be forgotten in twenty year is solely your unsupported personal opinion. You are entitled to hold it. But please stop representing it as an acknowledged fact.
      • Your notion that Clark and Praimnath were only mentioned in the MSM in 2001 and 2002, with "brief appearance in a 2005 film", is simply untrue. If you didn't realize this when you nominated them, you should realize it now.
      • You contention that all he did was survive is also highly debatable. Serious problems were revealed in the disaster planning at the WTC. Clark and Praimnath's experience was right at the center of it. They found an open stairwell, that, with better communication, could have allowed the hundreds of other WTC occupants, who were above the impact zone, a chance to survive. This is a very important point, and I can't understand why you keep failing to address it.
      • You keep asserting that thirteen other occupants survived the impact zone. I asked you for their names. I am still waiting. Geo Swan 14:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
        • If there were thirteen others, let's write the articles for them. that something will not bean important part of the historical record in irrelevant--WP is much broader than that--this may have been a criterion for such limited works as the EB. Anyway, I think they will--9/11 is likely to have books written about itindefinitely, and the names & accounts of the survivors will remain an important part of them. DGG (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this is a keep per sources, but I'm suggesting that Brian Clark be merged into Praimnath's article. He has very limited notability outside of the incident itself, unlike Praimnath (who has taken the incident and made a sort of career out of it). --Dhartung | Talk 17:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Question? I can't really make a decision either way, as i don't seem to be able to find any record of the things Stanley Praimnath has done. Can someone present sone links to sources of notability or else add them to the article? -- Jimmi Hugh 22:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ten Pound Hammer. That will probably open the door for dozens and dozens of similar articles about 9/11 survivors.--JForget 01:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Praimnath is arguably the most famous of the WTC survivors, having been interviewed in magazines, profiled in books like "102 Minutes" and "9/11: The Untold Story", his experience recreated in documentaries. As such, he has a notability that most 9/11 survivors do not. Perhaps it's his memorable name, perhaps it's the fact that he saw the plane up close, perhaps it's his inspiring story of faith... but he's quite well known to students of 9/11 Mandsford 23:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep They made a documentary about him on BBC. Keep. JonathanKyle 23:45, 3 August 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.