Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Fredinburg

Add links
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 no consensus/keep. By a straight count of votes, the deletes would have this by about a 2:1 ratio. This, however, is not necessarily a good measure of consensus, and we have run into that dilemma here.

In many ways, this AfD reminds me of the controversy over whether to host an article on the-then recently deceased Adrianne Wadewitz. The arguments against hosting this article include WP:NOTMEMORIAL and the related general notability guideline. Those in favor of keeping the article believe that Fredinburg passes the latter. The claims to notability include obituaries in two high-profile international news sources (the New York Times and Guardian), being mentioned in Google-related news articles, and having been romantically involved with a prominent actor (and the accompanying press attention). Given this discussion, it seems abundantly clear that Fredinburg would not pass the general notability test without the obituaries, but Wikipedia has no black and white guideline on whether high-profile obituaries should be taken into notability assessments. Having gone back and read Wadewitz's AfD, this is an identical scenario faced by the closer there, which ended in a keep. In the absence of similarly strong numbers in this discussion, this will slip to a no consensus/keep. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Fredinburg

[edit]
Dan Fredinburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is one for which we really need a BLP2E justification, but "Sophie Bush's former boyfriend was killed in an avalanche" is not much of a life story, and adding "and he was a middle bigwig at Google", which ought to be his real notability, is not much of an addition. He's a line in the earthquake article, perhaps. Everything else is covered by "Wikipedia is not People magazine." Mangoe (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As creator, Support a revert to original redirect at Google or to the List of people who died climbing Mount Everest. Vycl1994 (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I support this article's deletion or reversion it has nothing to do with some justification under BLP2E, since that's not a Wikipedia policy. Instead, if the subject is notable, it would have to be based on something he did in his life (e.g. instituting some privacy policy at Google, or creating some new privacy capability that affected users, etc.), not the manner of his death. The earthquake itself is notable, but people die in notable events every day, and since "Wikipedia is not 'People'", they don't become notable because of the event in which they died. Vertium When all is said and done 15:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - This article's notability is without question. It's not everyday a Google employee dies in an avalanche. Scaravich105nj (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2015,, this user turns out to be part of a large sockfarm.

(copy paste from Talk:Dan Fredinburg)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I've changed my mind, I'm swayed by the above arguments. Scaravich105nj (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Everest is notable, the deadliest mountaineering disaster in its history is notable, and the fact that Google had four employees working to map the mountain's climbing routes—one of whom lost his life—seems to me an important component of a larger story. Media around the world have already zeroed in on Dan Fredinburg and the article seems likely to expand as significant new biographical and narrative elements emerge. So immediate deletion seems premature. (And isn't there an obligation to flesh out his story? People seem to be looking to Wikipedia to provide more information on Fredinburg: Wikipedia page view stats for 26 April 2015 show more than 44000 hits for the Dan Fredinburg article; by comparison, there were only 98000 hits for the larger 2015 Nepal earthquake article. While I appreciate the argument that every life lost here is important, that merely dying in an exotic disaster does not merit "notability", we nevertheless relate to large disasters by telling individual stories—and it is inarguable that Fredinburg's story received immediate and broad media coverage. For very human reasons.) Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While each and every death in this natural disaster is tragic, from a policy standpoint, he's not notable at all really.--Rockchalk717 20:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seriously, is this even a debate? If he didn't die, there wouldn't have been an article about him. But because he died, there should be one. Are you serious? If the reason for his inclusion is merely because the disaster was notable, then shouldn't we create an article for each of the victims? where's the logic in that? I have a friend working in Google, why isn't there an article about her? I have a friend who used to date an actress, where's the article about him? I have a few friends who died in the 2004 Tsunami, why no one was debating to create an article for them? Also creating an article about him but not the other people who died alongside him is disrespectful. What makes his life more notable than the other victims? People are so narrow minded, so easily driven by emotion, trends, media and fads. Think!--Rtj182 (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • and Comment: If it's decided to delete the article, then deletion could be deferred until information on more foreign casualties has arrived, that this article's content could then be placed into something like Foreign casualties of the 2015 Nepal earthquake. Another option is to rename the current article to just that, given that many foreigners were climbers. Since climbing the Everest is a rather expensive sport, then many climbers were reasonably notable. -Mardus (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore in support of keeping, there are articles about Dan Fredinburg in three other language-projects. -Mardus (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but from WP:1E, quote = However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. quoteend. Also notice he was there last year during the avalanche which killed 16 sherpas, he was not only a victim, he was there for a cause - that was the reason for his expedition. prokaryotes (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • His role in this event isn't large at all, and I haven't seen a Wikipedia policy stating that someone who dies while supporting a cause is more notable than someone who dies in other situations. ― Padenton|✉   16:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it stands, coverage of the event and his person is growing, again meeting notability guidelines. And you could also argue that the event and his activism are related to each other. prokaryotes (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You constantly cite guidelines, which contradict your arguments, from your WP:BREAKING, read: Don't rush to delete articles. prokaryotes (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. Read the section, it says the solution should be to move it to the draft/user namespace, not keep in article space. And that's mainly based on there being a chance of the subject of the page somehow becoming notable. By all means, provide a possible scenario where Dan Fredinburg could possibly become notable within this event. ― Padenton|✉   20:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, he was notable before the event, for his social and climate activism, his businesses, his work, his appearance in media prior to the event (which includes video, print and online). Now with the event his coverage increased, including a fundraiser with atm 46k$, literally thousand of articles in almost every media source - all this underlines notability, the need for an article. This man was special, and the current media coverage is echoing this. I think we are done arguing here, maybe you might change your opinion, you might even consider to re-read the article there have been substantial additions.prokaryotes (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is you have yet to present any sources for this information. Subjects aren't notable based on the size of their fan clubs. Being "special" does not entail someone's notability. I don't change my opinion based on appeals to emotion. 4300 died in the earthquake, forgive me if I don't weep for how a single one of them was "special". ― Padenton|✉   21:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then i suggest you start reading, and to acknowledge the work of Fredinburg. prokaryotes (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN's on you. ― Padenton|✉   23:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is met per my first comment on this editor vote, i was wrong to respond to Padenton's claim that this is only a WP:1E case, which it is not. There have been multiple events when notability was established in the past couple of years. There is extensive coverage in reliable sources about the person. I will later add some more of it to the article. prokaryotes (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, there are not thousands of head executives who get full fledged feature coverage in print, online and in motion picture. And there are even less people who died for a cause. prokaryotes (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, in my opinion. Relevance has obviously been established. This Google executive dated a prominent actress, and he worked for one of the largest multinational corporations in the world. I think he deserves his own article. GreenMan642 (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC) User is blocked for sockpuppetry, same sockmaster as scaravich above. Also, be alert user previously attempted to remove some users' comments ― Padenton|✉   14:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment For the people shouting Keep, By that argument, an average employee from Infosys in India who dated a prominent <insert Indian language> actress is, deserves an article. Being employed in Google does not make him notable, nor does dating an actress, which comes under Notability is Not inherited, btw. Saying he deserves an article because he died in the earthquake [which is again, not entirely true, he died in the avalanche caused by the earthquake], is an insult to all the 2000+ victims, who also then should get an article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As of April 28, 2015, less than three days after Fredinburg's death was announced, some 880+ people have donated more than $63,000 through a Crowdrise campaign, Celebrating Dan, to support two Nepalese orphanages. Many if not most of the comments come from people who never knew him. Whatever some Wikipedists might feel, undoubtedly these donors feel Fredinburg's life was "notable".Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. "Our friend Dan Fredinburg was climbing Everest on behalf of OrphanGift in support of two Nepali orphanages when the earthquake struck. Please donate to honor his memory and carry on his mission." Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyway, the main argument of the people who want to make Dan's life work vanish, argue that his notability is only tied to 1 event. But the work of numerous Wikipedia contributors made in the last couple of days shows that his persona is connected to several events, and that he is notable for his remarkable work, which meets notability several times over. Editors who keep suggesting that he is only connected to 1 event are plain wrong, that is a fact, so stop and move on. Peace. prokaryotes (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think anybody here wants his "life work" to vanish, though in all honesty there is not really any "life work" that could vanish. Millions of people have studied at university and worked at a company. Thousands of people have climbed (easy) mountains. Our concern is that he does not meet the policy for notability. --Jeppesvinet (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   16:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hallward's Ghost:Where did J. Patrick Fischer use a WP:IDONTLIKEIT reason? ― Padenton|✉   23:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
His entire rationale basically boils down to his last line: "That stinks." He doesn't like that the Fredinburg has been covered (even when he was alive) by multiple reliable sources, and is even MORE well-covered by such sources now. He thinks it "looks like an[sic] promotion campagne[sic]", whatever that means. His rationale is entirely based upon the fact that he just doesn't like that this article exists. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 01:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hallward's Ghost: I didn't say, I do not like the article genarally. I said, the article has the smell of a campagne, because it just raised up now. The relevance i artificial. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are sources about others aspects of his life but none of those aspects were at all notable (dating an actress and being a low level manager at Google is not notable regardless of the number of sources). Those sources only exist because of his death and so he is only known (not notable) for being killed on the mountain. --Jeppesvinet (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Guideline states: For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) If someone who climbed several major mountains, dated a famous actress, working for one of the biggest companies and extended the scope of technologies like GoogleMaps, founded several social causes, and invented things as he went, is not remarkable and interesting, then i don't know what is. And this is not just my personal opinion, a fundraiser and media reports clearly show that, and even mention it. prokaryotes (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Inventing things as he went and founding several social causes? Why is this article becoming more and more like a fluffy memorial? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing user: Several !votes at the beginning of this AfD was made when the article was simply a short stub. Since then it has been heavily improved and clearly in my opinion pointing to notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:1E. The substance of the article hasn't changed since it was a stub so that doesn't negate those !votes. The article has more filler now certainly, but still has the same lack of relevant material and notability necessary to warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Both his work at Google and other ventures merit some degree of notability and recognition - his 2013 interview with Time magazine (taken before the disastrous accident) is evidence of that. He is internationally known for WP:1E, but this should not be used to take away the subject's prior notability. -A1candidate 19:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & comment - Subject is only known because he dated a famous person (which many other do) and died in a deadly earthquake (which killed thousands of other people). There are plenty of people who work for Google and its projects. In no way does any of this make this article pass WP:NN. Keep advocates seem to be using a bit too much WP:ARTN, but if there is more significant media coverage (which I don't think, but if) than the article should be kept. Till then delete. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes, he was in People before his death for dating a famous actress, but she has never merited more than a line in his Wikipedia article, and was not the reason news organizations the world over covered his death. Far more relevant to this discussion is Fredinburg's 2013 Time interview, and the fact that he was documenting his climb in a way that would allow computer/Internet users the world over to experience "virtual" ascents, as well as to see changes in the mountain's ice profile which have undoubtedly made recent ascents far more treacherous.
Believe me, we've not heard the end of coverage of this deadliest day in Everest history: nearly everyone on the mountain was carrying camera and recording equipment, and the films, books, and documentaries about that deadly day are sure to follow. Fredinburg's distinction—and I will hardly be alone in making this point—is that he wasn't filming in some small personal capacity, or (at best) creating a documentary destined for a limited audience, but "bringing it home" with unprecedented technology and connectivity, with a razor-edged focus on the very issues, climate change, glacier loss and ice instability, that arguably contributed to his death. Ask yourself, if we think Google Earth, Google Maps, Google Sky, and a whole host of spin-off products merit Wikipedia entries, would we have relegated "Google Mountain", "Google Ice", or "Google Vanishing Planet" to non-notable status, had one or more of them come to fruition? Is it not relevant, even important, that Fredinburg died in a dangerous undertaking taken in our stead, attempting to serve available knowledge in the broadest possible way?
Wikipedia gives ample space to its historical cartographers, even to those who "failed" or "got it wrong." Everest reveres its noble Mallorys. Deletion would be both unwarranted and premature—and in any event, his notability was not established by having dated a famous actress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vesuvius Dogg (talk • contribs) 14:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Vesuvius Dogg a noble undertaking indeed but there are many journalists and adventures who died in the quest to expand our knowledge and there are no articles of them on Wikipedia. There were also several companions of Fredinburg and once again there are no articles on these individuals. If the coverage proves to be truly significant the article should be kept, but where it is at right now it does not meet WP:NN in my opinion. Thanks for the feed back though. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you're being sarcastic, but your analogy is ridiculous. George Washington isn't notable for his death and is infinitely more notable than Dan Fredinburg. ― Padenton|✉   19:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no article about him, Jeppesvinet, because nobody had written about him yet. :) It says nothing about his notability either way. Wikipedia is nowhere near complete; there are many notable subjects not yet covered. See WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST; while a slightly different issue, the root cause is the same: "Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they are missing before they are created, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should." This article could be one of them (or could not; this comment is on the validity of the question "Why did no article exist before...?" and not on the notability of the subject at hand). For one of many examples, we have had an article on Lizzy Hawker for less than a week, even though she has been a world record holder for 4 years. She didn't just become notable; she just got an article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He lacked notability before his death, and he was only one of many thousand people who died due to the earthquake so no notibility for him through that. LoveToLondon (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete He died, when he did his job. How many articles about firefighter who died 9/11 when trying to rescue people exist? --Ochrid (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No claim to notability per wp:gng. It's generally a bad sign when the first line in an article's lede throws everything and the kitchen sink in trying to make one: "executive, climate activist, inventor, explorer and entrepreneur". None of the sources establish that he had notability in any of those fields. Speaking of sources, almost all of them currently in the article are from after his death, further underlining his lack of notability previous to that. Well, except those from the time when he was a boyfriend of actress Sophia Bush, which would be a great example of wp:notinherited. walk victor falk talk 21:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Doesn't the interview in Time essentially prove his notability? Also, there are a number of bad arguments and comparisons in this page. Whether he had an article on him before his death has no bearing on notability, and it is a bad comparison to the firefighters at 9/11 because there was at least some importance for him before his death. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 21:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a single event which makes him notable, but the sum of the different topics. His name is still in the news, there is no consensus to delete the article. prokaryotes (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is for content which is remarkable and interesting, further notability through 2015 event and 2013 Time interview, and his work on Google Maps, which he lead. prokaryotes (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks to me like his life was notable enough. The article's pretty well-written and well-sourced; we certainly have worse articles about less notable topics. This one's pretty good. NekoKatsun (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   20:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can replace the word with remarkable or significant or interesting. But maybe you got issues with the person added to Wikipedia, because you are jealous of his accomplishments. How else would someone just ignore those and linking broadly to a brief mention about WP is not a memorial. Ofc it's not, and claiming this article is just that is ignoring the notability at hand. prokaryotes (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that every single one of the sources is either not a reliable source, is covering the subject's death, or only mentions the subject. That is why people are voting delete. ― Padenton|✉   15:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply not true, and reveals that you judge on your personal opinion rather than judging from the facts. Thus, i challenge you to provide an example for your claims. Notice, Padenton|✉  recently also tried to lecture me on my talk page, suggesting i should stop posting here again, which is rather ironic looking at his own edit history. prokaryotes (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All I said was that you don't need to say the same argument over and over again with your comments, per WP:BLUDGEON. Almost all of your comments are saying the same thing and using the same argument. It doesn't help you. As for providing an example for my claims? Every single source in the current version of the article, is either a self-published source, covering the subject's death, or only has a brief mention of the subject. What is it you want me to provide an example of? ― Padenton|✉   16:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Every single source in the current version of the article, is either a self-published source, covering the subject's death, or only has a brief mention of the subject." @User:Padenton, that's false. His death prompted full articles in both The New York Times and The Guardian, as well as prominent pieces in People, Mashable, and other outlets. True, there were more than 2,500 articles around the world in dozens of languages that mentioned his basic biographic details, name, age, nationality and profession, as part of the larger coverage of the earthquake, but they are not linked. None of the sources here are "self-published," which would be rather difficult given that the subject is deceased.Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your examples actually prove the point of User:Padenton that the not self-published sources that do not only briefly mention him are only about him dying. His death is not enough for making him notable. What has he done before dying that created notability? What articles have been written about him before he died? LoveToLondon (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the misunderstandings here stem from the fact that the current coverage not only reported his death, but also highlighted his work. There are even article which focus on his work and only briefly mention that he recently died in the avalanche. There are also articles prior to the accident, which outlined his work or that he was at the same location last year and almost encountered an avalanche at the time. And there is a even video coverage of his work in various reliable sources (i.e. The Guardian, The Washington Post), and not only about the accident. prokaryotes (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An obituary usually focusses on what a person did during his life, not on how he died - that is normal. After a plane crash like MH17 you will usually find reliable sources (i.e. The Guardian, The Washington Post) describing the life of some of the victims, where they graduated from university and where they worked or the names and ages of the kids they raised as housewives. A housewife does not become notable by having a reliable sources (i.e. The Guardian, The Washington Post) telling where she lived and how she was a good mother raising her kids. Notability of Dan Fredinburg must be discussed based on what he did and the media coverage that created before April 25th. LoveToLondon (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dan_Fredinburg&oldid=1254987708"