Talk:Dan Fredinburg

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --46.15.2.214 (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

VIP

• Delete: Dan is not an exec, he is a program manager. The media is wrong. Symultaze (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete: The person might be a Google executive, but is still insignificant and does not require an extra article just to tell people how he died. His name is mentioned in the 2015 Nepal earthquake article, and is enough to convey the message. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete: The article reports that he 1) was a Google executive 2) once dated acctress Sophia Bush 3) died in the 2015 Nepal quake. None of these facts make him the least bit notable. --Jeppesvinet (talk) 10:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable person 117.216.151.225 (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Dating an actress, working for Google and Dying in an earthquake isn't really significant enough to warrant an article, which is unlikely to end up being anything more than a Stub in any case. His name listed as a casualty on the earthquake page would seem sufficient Trex21 (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Current deletion discussion is thataway. Mangoe (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --15.211.153.75 (talk) 10:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Retain Bah... this is not about Sophia Bush or who Fredinberg dated. The subject obviously fits Wikipedia notability requirements by virtue of his prominent media mentions so far (a New York Times obituary, as well as mention in breaking news article the world over), and not least the context of the Everest disaster itself—the worst in that prestige mountain's history—which is sure to yield follow-up articles and features with further color and context on Fredinberg and others who risked and lost their lives. Deletion would obviously be premature. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Laugh. Did he "risk" his life? He choose to be there, so if he risked anything it was only because he wanted to gain the fame, he never had or received. The fact that the event – the quake – is notable do not make the +2000 victims notable. Nor does a mention in a newspaper entitle somebody to a Wikipedia article. Jeppesvinet (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC) I think the international press coverage linking him to a major event makes the PROD at the very least debatable. And as the PROD is designed for uncontested deletion and it has been contested it no longer apples Drjamesphillips (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Keep Part why he went up there was to bring attention to the topic of climate change, and since the area is prone to climate changes, i.e. outlined-explained here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/mounteverest/10782936/Climate-change-makes-risks-of-climbing-Mount-Everest-even-greater-say-scientists.html Thus he is not just a victim, he was there to bring awareness to the topic of cc. prokaryotes (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Current Deletion Discussion

Above sections are irrelevant, see active-current del discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dan_Fredinburg prokaryotes (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

An additional comment on WP:GNG and the "no consensus/keep" ruling can be read here here, from the closing editor. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

In the event a decision is made to delete the article, then instead I propose to defer deletion and instead rename the article either to Foreign casualties of the 2015 Nepal earthquake (likely to happen, as the main article will expand), or Notable casualties of the 2015 Nepal earthquake, and then if a person was reasonably notable, include a blurb about their life, as with Dan Fredinburg and the two other people mentioned in the article. -Mardus (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

-- I agree with this idea. Connorgurney1 (talk) 08:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Other victims

I don't see a reason to keep the contents about the other victims, unless there is a connection to Dan or his work. prokaryotes (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm with you, it was added by another editor, and I left it up (adding the name of the fourth US victim) thinking it perhaps useful in a "breaking news" context. For that reason, it seemed considerate to leave it up for a while, as it's too much detail for the main earthquake article. But that said, it doesn't relate to Fredinburg, and I'd much dather see the second half of that paragraph replaced with info on the three other Google employees, two of whom I think were injured but "safe". But I haven't seen their names anywhere, have you? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Here are the names http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/12/mount-everest-sherpa-disaster-one-year-on prokaryotes (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, are we sure he was BORN in Norfork, AR, or did he just grow up there? Link or footnote helpful. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This article says he was a Norfork native, http://www.baxterbulletin.com/story/news/local/2015/04/26/norfork-native-dan-fredinburg-killed-avalanche/26429407/ prokaryotes (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That's just the problem — we're making an assumption. No hospital in Norfork, I'll bet. We need a better source for the infobox. An anonymous ip edit from California has corrected his full name and birthplace to Mission Viejo, CA. I did find this in an online search of California birth records, which makes the Mission Viejo factoid appear legit. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Grew up in Norfork. No Hospital there, nearest hospital would be Mountain Home, unless he was home-birthed. I knew the Fedinburg family and Dan well. They weren't that type to do the home-birth thing, though many would be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.122.19 (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It is quite common for people to list the town of their parents home as their birthplace, although born in a hospital in the next town.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Degrees

The wiki currently reads that Dan "earned advanced degrees from the University of Southern California, Stanford University, and the University of California, Berkeley." Is there another source for this?

Dan's own LinkedIn page clearly said that he didn't finish the advanced degrees. I would link, but the page has been taken down since his death.

Lzhhu (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

We strive for accuracy, but we only have that one published source, so I would appreciate others weighing in. Perhaps someone who knew him? I didn't see his LinkedIn page. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Someone who knew him is not a source. If there is no sourced information it has to be deleted. LoveToLondon (talk) 06:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Essentially the commenter above is disputing this source based on the deleted LinkedIn page. No other known source reported his advanced degrees (and I find it difficult to believe he failed to complete three of them—was he involved/enrolled in non-degree research programs?). Let's hope for some clarity to come in a future article. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Why is it difficult to believe he didn't complete those three degrees? This is much more common in Silicon Valley than you might think. Pursuing knowledge is valued, but getting the actual degree is much less important. Here's a different 2015 source[1] that matches the info I saw on Dan's linkedin. The relevant part of the bio states, "Dan holds over 50 patents and patents pending. He has a BS in Computer Science from UC Irvine, an MS in Intelligent Robotics from the University of Southern California, in addition to multiple, partially-completed degrees from Stanford and Berkeley." Writmo (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Re-Nomination For Deletion

I'd nominate the deletion of this page. This entire page reads heavily of personal involvement of friends and family of the deceased. Mourning a lost love one should not involve canonizing them as relevant. This reads morbidly as people trying to boost their own ego by knowing someone "significant" who died.

In particular, his alleged girlfriend, Ashley Arenson, is mentioned 3 separate times, including a full description of who she is, despite not being significant (since removed after posting). If you look at pages of actual significant people, not even long term spouses are mentioned in such detail.

This entire article is a stain on the crowd-sourced nature of Wikipedia. Just because a lot of tech-savvy people knew the deceased, does not mean they can boost their ego by painting him as something he was not.

DarrinQ (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with all above that there is insufficient reason for a Wikipedia page of this person. 2600:6C50:147F:E0D3:717E:238D:151D:21C7 (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)