Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ephraim Shapiro (2nd nomination)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ephraim Shapiro
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable. He was not notable during his life. He only came to public attention when allegations against him were made after his death. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see how it matters that the subject became notable after death. That is not one of the reasons for deletion. There may be good reasons to delete this article, but post-mortem notability isn't one of them.   Will Beback    talk    02:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Being notable means having reliable sources that exist on the subject. There is no guideline states that the sources have to have been around during the person's lifetime. By the nom's logic, Emily Dickinson and Vincent van Gogh would not be worthy of Wikipedia articles. Here is a list of people who got famous after their deaths (these example included). Ephraim Shapiro may not have become famous for all the desirable reasons of the people in this list. But the coverage is there. And Mr. Shapiro's case has had the effect of other allegations being investigated. Xyz7890 (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But the allegations only raise him to the level of a common criminal, still far from the importance of van Gogh and Dickinson. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. "notable means having reliable sources" – incorrect. Sources are a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. The sufficient conditions are listed in the various well-defined notability guidelines – see WP:BIO. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC).


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete simply a "clergyman" of a congregation was also a headteacher. There's nothing notable here. Would seem to fail WP:BIO. There are no notable books or publications. So he seems to fail any notability guideline. After his death there were some accusations? So what? It might be fine to use him as an example on a wider article on child abuse in American Judaism or something. But really? Someone point me to a notability guideline he passes? Sure there are some news stories connected with the allegations - but you get that for any such.--Scott Mac 09:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Really a person of no lasting importance. It would be normal for 700 people to attend the funeral of a clergyman or a professor.  The event of allegations of sexual abuse being made against him later does not make his life notable.  Also there is no way to prove or disprove the charges now (although I am inclined to believe them myself.) Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTSCANDAL. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This person is not just notable for a single event. There is reliably sourced information during his lifetime of him being a spiritual leader, found in book publications, long before the posthumous scandal of his molestation came out. So this article cannot be deleted over a single event issue. The BLP guidelines cannot be applied either because he is deceased. NOTSCANDAL is also an invalid argument here because this article is filled with sourced information, not just whoever coming on and writing their feelings of a person. The person who gave the NOTSCANDAL argument did not explain why that is applicable either. Xyz7890 (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly true, but we hardly lack good reasons to delete this - like failing every notability guideline we have, dead or alive.--Scott Mac 23:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. This seems to be nothing more than a boosterism article. It's clear that the individual passes none of the notability criteria, as comments above establish. The only pro-argument seems to be the usual plea that he is "a spiritual leader", which does unfortunately sometimes work. (The article on Tzvi Berkowitz is even weaker, but we somehow managed to keep that one.) Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Agricola44 (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete this minor non-entity rabbi who was later revealed to be a sick pervert, per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTSCANDAL as per User: David Eppstein. IZAK (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I have found offline newspaper articles dating back to 1947, 1948, 1952, 1955, 1956, 1967, and 1971 stating when he assumed various positions already mentioned in this article and received various honors. I found an article on his retirement, and another when his death occurred. He has been mentioned in several books for his roles in the communities he has served and in the education process. All this besides those from 2007 onward about the molestation. That is by far enough for him to be considered notable. Linda Olive (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. No indicator of significant coverage in secondary sources outside the context of a single scandal. Ray  Talk 20:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * delete Individual seems to be failing in WP:GNG as significant coverage has not been attained The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see Linda Olive says she has offline sources, if added to the article then I will probably switch. Offline sources are difficult but depending on who the sources were published by it still may not meet WP:GNG The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added a few. I may be able to add a few more tomorrow as well. This should be enough to keep it. Linda Olive (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Possible compromise It looks like most people who have commented here have already said delete already, and tomorrow will be one week since this discussion has been opened. I have come up with an idea. There are some articles that already exist and are well accepted such as Catholic sexual abuse scandal in the United States and Day care sex abuse hysteria that do not cover the sex abuse of a particular individual, but an overall situation in which a large number of people affiliated with a group have been involved or accused of sex abuse, and it has become a major news story. Likewise, the case of Ephraim Shapiro being posthumously accused of child molestation was written up in the BJT and other papers as part of a larger issue of sex abuse within the Jewish community in which there were other offenders.

My idea is to not totally delete this page on the 16th, but to leave this discussion open at least a few more days while others can discuss this possibility. This article can simply be moved to a title like Jewish community sex abuse or similar, and other information can be added to the current content. Deleting it totally would make the current content inaccessible, and thereby hinder the effort to create such a page. Xyz7890 (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2010 (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.