Talk:Abraham Zelmanowitz

A {{tl|db-person}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraham_Zelmanowitz&diff=327931724&oldid=327912637 was placed] on this article.

The wikipedia is not a memorial. We don't currently cover the bulk of 9-11 victims, or surviving loved ones of 9-11 victims in individual articles. At one time some of these individuals were covered, and, after discussion, that coverage was trimmed, because the wikipedia is not a memorial. The individuals whose articles were excised, or merged, were otherwise unexcetional people, who had been living otherwise unexceptional lives, who weren't covered in WP:RS in anything other than obituaries, or articles about them were basically memorials.

I agree we shouldn't carry articles about victims or survivors of 9-11 or any other disaster, that are basically memorials. But victims or survivors whose stories are exceptional, and for whom there are WP:RS documenting how they are exceptional, should continue to be covered.

I suggest that being used as an example of selflessness in a speech by the President is precisely the kind of think that makes an individual exceptional enough to merit an article. The article currently says:

{{quotation|"Zelmanowitz's death was used by George W. Bush in a speech to the United States Congress to help rationalize and justify the invasion of Afghanistan."}}

The article then goes into detail of Zelmanowitz bravery and selflessness. People read the speeches of Presidents and former Presidents. When a President's speech mentions someone named Abraham_Zelmanowitz a curious reader may want to turn to their regular trusted source to look up the background on Abraham_Zelmanowitz. It is a disservice to those readers to delete the article on Abraham_Zelmanowitz -- an article which was not a memorial. Geo Swan (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on Abraham Zelmanowitz. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=742307600 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041215154317/http://www.commondreams.org:80/headlines02/0117-06.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0117-06.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050303173049/http://www.newmobility.com:80/review_article.cfm?id=461&action=browse to http://www.newmobility.com/review_article.cfm?id=461&action=browse

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abraham Zelmanowitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130727095710/http://names.911memorial.org/ to http://names.911memorial.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is clearly a memorial. The sources that mention him are poor and are hagiography (altho I can't access the NY Times article... but it's entirely possible that it doesn't even mention his name). We don't actually know what happened to a sufficient level of confidence, all we have is his sister-in-law's word.

His sole claim to notability is that the President of the United States mentioned him in a single sentence (and not even by name) in his remarks three days later.

Phhhht. But the existence of the article doesn't bother me in the least. Since it already exists, I'd vote to keep it, on the grounds that it's not a terrible article, it's not hurting anyone, and is viewed by eight people a day who are presumably getting something from it. So whatever. It's been nominated for deletion twice and been kept twice, for whatever reason, so I'd leave it alone. YMMD. Herostratus (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)