Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ephraim Shapiro


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ephraim_Shapiro
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I nominate this article for deletion as it seems to be a very clear case of WP:BLP1E. ephix (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC) ephix (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep. For starters, Ephraim Shapiro is not a living person. He has been deceased for 20 years. The nom's only policy cited as a rationale for deletion is WP:BLP1E, a subsection of Biographies of living persons, which is a policy written for dealing with living people. Also, articles about this case went on for months, probably over a year. They involved not just he subject, but also his son and other suspects. Xyz7890 (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, hi, there is no WP guidline dealing specifically with biographies of deceased person, see here, its content is still relevant and we have to discuss it here. Perhaps I should have cited WP:N, or to be specific this section. that the subject of this article is notable only for one event is the most troubling factor, that the even was prolonged over a year and featured in the media for that duration isn't significant enough. thanks. ephix (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Though it was negative publicity that initially drew the subject into the media, that does not automatically constitute a neutrality issue. If we had a policy that media mention over negative exposure does not qualify a person for an article, then thousands of articles should be deleted. But that is not the case.


 * What's more, the main source, the Baltimore Jewish Times, was careful not to make the coverage of the subject an all-out vilification, and to describe Rabbi Shapiro's honorable life as well. The publication implied that this exposé was with regret and not without controversy.


 * To avert the concerns about the single source, I did add references from a few more sources to the article.Xyz7890 (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The article gives undue weight to the negative aspects of the subject and is primarily sourced by a single publication which is cause to question its neutrality. - Mgm|(talk) 11:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Even if neutrality were to be an issue with this article, the proper action would be to apply to npov tag and address the issues, not to delete it. Besides, the article, and its main source (the Baltimore Jewish Times), does not only describe the subject as a child molester. It also tells his life story as an honorable rabbi. Xyz7890 (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The AfD process decides if Wikipedia should have an article with this title, and I think it's pretty clear that it should. The allegations of child-abuse are serious, and need to be well-sourced if they're to remain.  In this case they are well-sourced: the guy was convicted and the convictions were reported in newspapers, and the reports are linked.  There's not much left to discuss except the level of detail the article should go into, and AfD doesn't prescribe that.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  02:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The content of BLP is not relevant here at all. The policy is WP:RS, and the sources are sufficiently reliable. DGG (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge The larger topic of molestation by clery could include a list of notable offenders.  Otherwise the personage and the events are notable.  I would like to see more about the person other than the molestation story.Joe407 (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment When I first wrote this article, I tried to provide as much info as possible about the person, and I provided as much as I was able, based on the info I found. The section about his life is about the same size as the one about the posthumous molestation accusations against him. Xyz7890 (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I dont see why the sources shouldnt be considerd main stream and profesnal, also i dont beleave that the negetive facts over takes the importence of this very notable biagraphy.--Chaim Shel (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2009 (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.