Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Édmée Schneerson (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) 03:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Édmée Schneerson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting, because of a previous discussion that degenerated into personal attacks. Myself, I have no clear opinion; But I note the article currently relies on a single source, and it would help to know the extent to which the book discusses her. The footnotes given seem to indicate only 2 pages, and a footnote. I suggest that in view of the amount written on her cousin Menachem Mendel Schneerson, if she was of very great significance in his life there ought to be other sources available. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: This article fails
talk) 05:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No mention outside of Wikipedia or its mirrors; no Google news, no Google books, no Google scholar. The article also makes no claim to notability. Being related to someone notable does not make you notable. Fails
WP:GNG. Astronaut (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete As I observed in the earlier discussion, while this woman may have played an important role in the life of a notable figure, that alone does not even approach a criterion for notablility. Vartanza (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not to re-hash all the previous points made, but prior to her mention in the sole source cited which fails
WP:GNG and cannot begin to claim any significant notability. Winchester2313 (talk) 07:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Unencyclopedic relative. Dr. Blofeld 11:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no indication of
inherited. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Using Google as the sole (or even primary) standard is explicitly against
notability, and should be discounted. In the Lubavitch community she is very notable, and it is also obvious that in that community females are not splashed in the public's eye (e.g., traditional secondary/tertiary sources) due to their cultural sensitivity as publicity relates to women (i.e., there would be a cultural bias on the part of Wikipedia without adjusting the standards for that community, just as there would be for Native Americans, etc.). More prudent, IMHO, is to take seriously DGG's concern of the limited source, and because Wikipedia is not paper, retain with the tag asking for additional documentation, with the understanding that additional documentation may be from atypical sources.Edstat (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
It was claimed that "In the Lubavitch community she is very notable". I am highly familiar with the Lubavitch community, and I have never heard of this woman; please adduce some sort of internal Lubavitch publication (I read Hebrew and Yiddish as well, if needed) to confirm your claim. Thanks. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been better for you to just vote (as you do below), instead of arguing against others' vote (which I understand was the reason for the "reset" to begin with). I will explain my vote, but only because you have asked.

(1) "Establishment of Notability: Notability is more difficult to establish in non-Anglophone topics because of a lack of English sources and no incentive among anglophone participants to find sources in the native language of the topic. A lack of native language editors of the topic only compounds the problems. The lack of sources and therefore notability causes articles to wind up going through the deletion process of Wikipedia.

"Article Deletion: The group of participants in the discussions of AFD may not include any native-language participants or participants familiar with the subject of the non-anglophone article. A single native language editor's views will not be deemed consensus because of his minority in the group of discussion members..."

(2) If you really are that familiar with the Lubavitch community, you would know that women in general are not publicized in the written word, but their actions are definitely part of the Mesorah, as, for that matter, is the case in other cultures as well.

(3) If you are unfamiliar with the subject, how familiar could you be with the Lubavitch community?

Therefore, I suggested to avoid bias, a tag be placed to ask for documentation to support notablity.

Finally, you have suggested below another good alternative, which is to absorb her into a larger article. That will also avoid bias.Edstat (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Agreed.

2. Women are definitely publicised in the written word in the Lubavitch community, what with the various histories published of the Chabad Rebbetzins, and in terms of publications for women, there is the old English/Yiddish Di Yiddishe Heim magazine (now defunct), the Nshei Chabad magazine, and the supplements for women in the Beis Chabad and Beis Moshiach magazines.

3. I am familiar with Lubavitch history. However, this woman is discussed nowhere, and nor have I ever heard of her orally. There are indeed a few people who make it their business to know about every single obscure person ever to have a connection to the Scheersohn dynasty, but that does not qualify as being "very notable" "in the Lubavitch community", nor does failure to know of it reflect on a lack of familiarity with the community. Again, what is your source for the claim that she is "very notable" within this community?

4. I didn't mean to suggest that she warrants a mention in any other article, either; sorry for the misunderstanding. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t want this to degenerate into an argument about a vote (which seems to violate the spirit of the “reset”), but I also don’t want anyone to think your comments stand without rebuttal. It is not true that “women are definitely publicized in the written word in the Lubavitch community.” The Halacha and Minhag, based on “Kol Cavodah Bas HaMelech P’nimah,” was rather unanimous in Chabad as it was throughout the history of orthodoxy (with famous exceptions such as D’vorah, Esther HaMalkah, Rabi Meir's wife, Rashi’s daughter, etc.), at least until the first Sephardic Chief Rabbi’s ruling, and even today in many communities it remains in the category of something that is not generally done. Histories of the Lubavitcher Rebbes’ wives are exceptions, not because they were notable, but because they were public personalities due to their husband. In any case, your example would restrict notables to seven women in the history of Lubavitch. Your periodical listing is irrelevant. Di Idishe Heym only began in 1958, and “in Di Yiddishe Heim’s earliest issues, a short-lived series entitled “Great Women in Jewish History” focused exclusively on the biblical matriarchs and pre-Hasidic heroines” (B. J. Morris, Lubavitcher Women in America, 1998, p. 109). The N’shei Chabad newsletter only began in 1973, Bais Moshiach in 1995, etc., and this clearly was not their mission. My advice: vote, but don't argue against other's vote.Edstat (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per my first !vote, fails
WP:RS are forthcoming? Bigger digger (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This woman does not satisfy
WP:ONEEVENT. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepA recent book (2010) by two sociologists of Hasidism, Heilman & Friedman, published by Princeton University Press, made a very important point. It explains why the futur Rebbe of Lubavitch, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, and his wife, Chaya Mushka, decided in 1933 to leave Berlin and settle in Paris. They lived in France for about 8 years, before coming to the U.S. Now, that decision to move to Paris was not a casual decision. The fact that three relatives, cousins, were living in Paris made the difference. The three cousins were Edmee Schneerson, Schneour Zalman Schneersohn, and Isaac Schneersohn. That decision to settle in France, and remember that the futur Rebbe and Rebbetzin applied for French citizenship, will have an enduring influence on the thoughts and life of the Rebbe.(Highland14 (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comment. I found an online source which confirms her existance under the alternative spelling of her last name as Schneersohn. The source is also French, but lucky I can read French. The source provides useful information such as her birthday ("29 septembre 1907") and second name "Minette" which could lead to other sources. It's too bad the snippet view won't show more. I'll add the translated material to the article shortly. Though I've yet to form an opinion, I think that counting this online source and good faith acceptance offline source may make it worthwhile to hold off deleting for now as per
WP:DEMOLISH as this article is quite young —CodeHydro 17:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

This supplement of information is very interesting, because it shows that she is the only native among the three cousins in Paris. She was the "real French born". (Highland14 (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment This article was started in early August, plenty of time to find sources. Just read the article, she didn't do anything except be related to a few other people. Bigger digger (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the purpose of the "reset". There are now two people arguing against others' vote. I suggest, *again*, vote with an explanation, but stop arguing others' votes. A consensus will or will not be found, but what is the point in arguing?Edstat (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the purpose of the relist either. It was a clear delete. what is the point in arguing? The point is that others may be distorting policy and making false assumptions, so we need to expose that. Only then will the closing mod be able to weigh the true points and consensus will form.
talk) 23:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Well we don't know for sure that she didn't do anything noteworthy; only that not much in this article stands out ;) She may well have done some amazing things that were ignored by biographers, perhaps simply because she is a woman. For example, the fact that she studied at the Sorbonne may hint at exceptionality since women were seldom highly educated in that era. I also may point out that the inclusion guidelines were originally made in response to defamation of living people... she's dead so this is quite unlikely to harm her or her posterity. But these are just the musings of an open mind; not arguing for or against until I get a chance to look into it deeper. —CodeHydro 00:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. There isn't anything in this lady's profile that could even remotely justify a stand-alone article on her. If she has her own article, we could justify adding thousands of irrelevant people who may have influenced someone notable at one time, which is bizarre, to say the least.Londoner77 (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject appears to have been related to notable people, but notability is not inherited. Edward321 (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who speaks about notability inherited? She was born into the dynasty. If we would stop there, you would be right. Here, what we have is a relative, but a relative who has an influence. So, the argument of inherited doesn't hold! (Highland14 (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - as per
WP:GNG. There is no indication of any notability at all, nor any proof of significant influence(s) or achievements. Csteffen13 (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: I find
WP:BIO are suspended. This curious notion has no basis in policy or guideline. Wikipedia is under no onus to be "culturally sensitive" to a group's alleged distaste for having their deeds documented. The only acceptable response to the suggestion that this woman's history lacks adequate sourcing because the lives of Lubavitcher women are out of the public eye is "Then a Wikipedia article on her cannot be sustained." Ravenswing 02:54, 10 September 2010 (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.