Content deleted Content added
→Arbitrary section break 4: keep and rename |
→Arbitrary section break 4: Substantial precedents and even a notability essay already address unusual aircraft incidents |
||
Line 223: | Line 223: | ||
*'''Very Strong Delete''' - As I fear that this may lead to a new trend of people doing crazy and off the wall things, just in order to get a wikipedia page about them. We really should begin to strictly enforce [[WP:BLP1E]], or eventually it will begin to get out of hand.--[[User:Jojhutton|Jojhutton]] ([[User talk:Jojhutton|talk]]) 02:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Very Strong Delete''' - As I fear that this may lead to a new trend of people doing crazy and off the wall things, just in order to get a wikipedia page about them. We really should begin to strictly enforce [[WP:BLP1E]], or eventually it will begin to get out of hand.--[[User:Jojhutton|Jojhutton]] ([[User talk:Jojhutton|talk]]) 02:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep and rename''' to JetBlue Airways Flight 1052 or something of the sort. The incident is notable, yet the person fails [[WP:BLP1E]]. [[User:Gidonb|gidonb]] ([[User talk:Gidonb|talk]]) 03:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Keep and rename''' to JetBlue Airways Flight 1052 or something of the sort. The incident is notable, yet the person fails [[WP:BLP1E]]. [[User:Gidonb|gidonb]] ([[User talk:Gidonb|talk]]) 03:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Substantial precedents and even a notability essay already address unusual aircraft incidents:''' |
|||
**Wikipedia's coverage of aviation accidents and incidents is especially comprehensive and high quality, thanks to the work of some diligent, knowledgeable editors. Wikipedia does an unusually good job covering this material. As an aviation incident, JetBlue Airways flight 1052 is an event Wikipedia will want good coverage of next month, next year and next decade regardless of whether the general public remembers Steven Slater. |
|||
**Our [[Aviation accidents and incidents]] article says the term "Aircraft incident" is formally defined in the [[Convention on International Civil Aviation]] as "an occurrence other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft, which affects or could affect the safety of operations." This event will be considered an "incident"; Slater has been charged with "reckless endangerment" and an internal JetBlue [http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2010/08/12/jetblue-memo-rebukes-steven-slater-for-chute-riding-exit/ memo leaked] to the [[Wall Street Journal]] emphasizes the safety threat Slater's action posed. |
|||
**We have a task force just for articles about aviation accidents and incidents: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force|WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force]]. The task force's work includes many, many articles about non-accident incidents; here's a small sample: [[Eastwind Airlines Flight 517]], [[Continental Airlines Flight 1883]], [[2005 Logan Airport runway incursion]], [[JetBlue Airways Flight 292]], [[Northwest Airlines Flight 327]], [[CityFlyer Express Flight 8106]], [[America West Flight 556]], [[Korean Air Lines Flight 85]], [[2007 San Francisco International Airport runway incursion]] and [[Northwest Airlines Flight 188]] |
|||
**There is an essay (''not'' a guideline) with a section specifically addressing the treatment of accidents and incidents: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Notability#Accidents|WikiProject Aviation/Notability#Accidents]] |
|||
**There are standard templates for these types of articles: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Templates|WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Templates]] |
|||
**The task force has a proposed style guideline: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Accidents)|WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Accidents)]] |
|||
**There are annual lists of aircraft accidents and incidents; see: [[:Category:21st-century aviation accidents and incidents]] |
|||
**Mr. Slater's personal fame may indeed be fleeting. If he wants to avoid 7 years in prison, he needs to keep a low profile until his case is resolved. By then, the public may have moved on in which case his hypothetical book and movie deals may have evaporated. |
|||
:--<font face="Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]])</sup> </font> 03:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:18, 13 August 2010
Steven Slater
- Steven Slater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Though the article contains references, it is a classic case of WP:BLP1E and I therefore propose that it be deleted. Favonian (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Explanation for new folks: "WP:BLP1E" is a shorthand link to guidance on "Subjects notable only for one event" in our Biographies of living persons policy --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Favonian. Definite case of WP:BLP1E. CarrotMan (talk) 10:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete - as the gentleman is not yet notable enough for an encyclopedia. However, he may become notable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)See below- Delete textbook WP:BLP1E G
ainLine ♠ ♥ 10:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC) DeleteChanged to redirect at 12:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC), see below - Individuals who receive coverage for only one minor event are typically not sufficiently notable for their own article, per WP:BIO1E. -- Lear's Fool 12:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)- Delete- as soon as possible, per WP:BLP1E.
- Delete - couldn't believe there was an article on this guy (linked from Google news) orioneight (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. immediate application of WP:BLP1E is called for. patsw (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- I added the appropriate merge tags on Steven Slater and Flight attendant. patsw (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment I tried to speedy this, there seems to be fairly clear concensus to delete, can we get an early close?GainLine ♠ ♥ 14:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E could have been written with this article in mind. No notability whatsoever, the guy stormed out of work and happened to end up on the "And Finally..." segments. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, or merge with a general article based on the event. I don't think Wikipedia needs to keep an article based on whatever caught US media's TMZ-style-fantasy. This article is, at least not yet, not about a notable person that we would like to keep a permanent record of in an encyclopedia. His actions performed in a fit of anger, whether justified or not, may seem funny but do not warrant an encyclopedic entry. This has the potential to open floodgates of articles based on events like this. I hope we are not cowed down by the media frenzy on a mundane yet funny event and suspend our better judgment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratyushnidhi (talk • contribs) 12:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep': This keep vote does not conform with current policy, but neither did Mr. Slater's kick-ass actions. At least let the AfD run the seven days until the brouhaha dies down.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why, thank you :-) My vote may actually comply with policy now, because the news coverage of this guy is overwhelming, he has apparently touched a sensitive cord of the American psyche and its feeling about work. AP, New York Times, etc, etc.--Milowent • talkblp-r 12:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Or its just a silly season story in the 'and now for' segments at the end of news stories and just another internet joke (like that cop killer up north) that gets all the sados in a lather untill they move on to the latest dilletante fetish.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Snow delete per WP:BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- More snow. - Shoulda been speedied... Carrite (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed only notable for being a tit once in his life. Come on OK its a great name (and the initials are funny if you have a really twisted sence of humour, part apart from that the blokes a nobody.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Snow delete BLP1E. Sources only exist because it was funny. —fetch·comms 17:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Make this article a stub, or expand it. Don't delete it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moch770 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete or put a short note about him into "Events of 2010" or another article about ... I don't know, flight attendant controversies or something. Because a year from now we'll be going "Stephen who?" --Bluejay Young (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- A year from now when you're going "what was that flight attendant story about the guy who escaped the plane....?", you'll be able to find it, especially if wikipedia covers it. With the internet, any odd and famous amusing event from the past -- such as Mahir Çağrı, Tourist guy, Bert is Evil, Ate my balls, Mark V Shaney, is within easy reach. Why not give people the pleasure of being able to access the knowledge they want to access?--Milowent • talkblp-r 20:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- All of these are not single one off events, they are ongoing (or were) phenomina. Why is this even considerd worthy of a page? Does this mean that every twat who does something idiotic that gets news coverage (and here we see Mr Spigot nailing an albertros to his head) gets a page. Its worse then the Guiness book of people doing daft things to get a bit of attention.Slatersteven (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- A year from now when you're going "what was that flight attendant story about the guy who escaped the plane....?", you'll be able to find it, especially if wikipedia covers it. With the internet, any odd and famous amusing event from the past -- such as Mahir Çağrı, Tourist guy, Bert is Evil, Ate my balls, Mark V Shaney, is within easy reach. Why not give people the pleasure of being able to access the knowledge they want to access?--Milowent • talkblp-r 20:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- KEEP A lot of individuals are famous for 1 event ( John Hinkley Jr, Sirhan Sirhan, Samatha Smith (wrote Andropov a letter),
and there are others, being known for 1 event does not disqualify this individual. Add to it that he was arrested and is now at Rikers Island. KEEP KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 20:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- True but the events they were part of were what made them notable, in a senece they are not notable its what they did (or tried to do) that makes them notable. All this bloke did was to lose he temper and storm of a plane his actions will not affext any one but those invloved.Slatersteven (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep for now. I would highly recommend a delete and merge, but this should be interesting to watch unfold. The way things are turning out, I am inclined to wait a couple of weeks for things to settle down. He's almost achieving cult status, which surprised me a great deal. --Hourick (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- And this will (if it turns ouot this is a flash in the pan) be used with the shout of notability is not temporary. Why not delete it and if it does have milage re-create the page?Slatersteven (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Lots of biographies in Wikipedia are about people famous for "one event." In this case, ABC News calls his departure probably "one of the most dramatic ways to quit a job ever." Christian Science Monitor says he is "fast becoming an Internet folk hero." Activities which are the extremes of human behavior may well be encyclopedic. He is not just one more person who quit his job. His response to abuse from a customer has received 1416 instances of coverage worldwide. If Chesley Sullenberger gets an article which survived AFD for one event lasting a few seconds of piloting of an airplane and some good luck landing an airplane it, why can't Slater have an article for one event on an airplane in which he was finally fed up and quit in a way which abused employees worldwide can appreciate? The court case is only beginning, and he says his behavior is a response to out of control passengers. In a legal case, there is not one event but a series of events, lasting months.Edison (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- There is a world of differance between a man saving 100's of lives and some moron losing his temeper and throwing a wobbly (I show em a nick some beer). Most burglary trials last months, some get news coverage are they notable too?Slatersteven (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- What does that mean in plain English? wobbly, nick? Which burglary trials got 1416 instances of coverage around the world, because the papers and news channels saw something out of the ordinary? Edison (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is plain English and in common usage, throwing a wobbly To throw a tantrum. Reached the end of rational thought and action. So how much coverage would an single event that has legal repercusions need to qaulify as a notable event?Slatersteven (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- What does that mean in plain English? wobbly, nick? Which burglary trials got 1416 instances of coverage around the world, because the papers and news channels saw something out of the ordinary? Edison (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that on a case-by-case basis editors made the decision to include Sullenberger's article in Wikipedia does not void WP:BLP1E. Editors did not delete WP:BLP1E to make that happen. Practically, what this means is that editors can make the case here in the Afd there's a significance to Steven Slater, that again, on a case-by-case basis, editors can come to a consensus that a stand-alone biographical article on Steven Slater should appear in Wikipedia. Make the case for it because there's a lot of delete votes here citing a policy for doing so. patsw (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Meets WP:BLP1E. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- keep ...the drama will continue to unfold... he will be more famous... he is episodically emblematic of a completed scenario and will be added to the culture's legend Masterknighted (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Most of the keep votes are of the "More things are coming" variety, which violates WP:CRYSTAL. This is a clear one event situation. - Richfife (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Pity there's no WP:IICDIINN: "If I can do it, it's not notable". - Richfife (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Wrong. Note the Christian Science Monitor and ABC News above, which are not predictions by me that more coverage will be given, but statements from reliable sources of present notability. People magazine says many people are "labeling JetBlue flight attendant Steven Slater a hero. " Not a prediction, a statement of the present state of notability. Time Magazine says "Slater's unique flip-out struck a nerve with frustrated flyers the world over." Edison (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Lots of people get called heros on the internet that does not establish lasting notability Time seems to be usurem this has any milage http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/08/10/the-5-best-things-about-flight-attendant-steven-slaters-freakout/. Is this all the internet (and wikiepdia)is for making heros out of tits. I can imagine the fisrt of the pages about some NIMBYs complaining about a new Tesco in Much whinning in the rut.Slatersteven (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Snow delete. Case of WP:BLP1E. SYSS Mouse (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - per yonder votes. Not really notable for anything, just in the news as a fluff story at the moment. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 22:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Don't throw a wobbly now, I just wanna keep per Milowent. Yes, I went there. Cindamuse (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)- Keep, but move to an article about the event itself. If it's notable enough for ABC World News, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, and almost every major newspaper in the U.S., it ought to be notable enough for Wikipedia. (Yeah, I know this is Wikipedia and not WikiNews; my point on notability still stands.) –BMRR (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:SNOW. I was tempted to close this discussion myself, but I'm short on time. If he becomes genuinely notable in the future, we can recreate or restore the article. Until then, it needs to go. --jonny-mt 01:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is just going to snowball. The guy will get stints on talk shows and a book deal...everyone should know the drill by now. If, in defiance of the natural order of things, it fades to obscurity relatively quickly, we can always delete or merge it in 2 months. To be honest, I don't know why people are so eager to delete these sorts of things within 24 hours of them happening. Let the story play out and see how the article evolves for a couple weeks...
--K10wnsta (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC) - Question: What's a snow delete? Argel1200 (talk) 02:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- A snow delete involkes the WP:SNOW essay, essentially stating that, while AfDs normally run seven days, the result is so certain that the discussion should be closed early as a full discusssion is not warranted. It's not a policy, but is intended to be a guide to the application of WP:Ignore all rules and WP:Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy. -- Lear's Fool 02:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break 1
- Strong Keep This is definetely not a case of WP:BLP1E, apparently most of you didn't read the WP:BLP1E. The reliable sources are persistent. Right now, more people around the world know of this guy and this story then will ever know who John Hinckley is. And, according to WP:BLP1E, John Hinckley is the prototype of notability for a single event. There are more notes about this guy than about 99 percent of Wikipedia subjects. Right now, a google search for Steven Slater gives 1.4 million results. All of those results could be characterized as "Notes". If something has 1.4 million notes, then it is notable. Any other interpretation is a psychotic break from reality that, unfortunatley, has taken over the mind set of some Wikipedians. I just did a random article, from the home page of Wikipedia, and came up with "Chemlab", a band. Googling it reveals 90,000 results. How is that more notable than the millions for Steven Slater? There is no way that the notability of this story is going away. Keep.--Marcwiki9 (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Mbstone (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree with those who say delete. This man is worthy enough to have an article...it is an ongoing story...come on, there are plenty of pages on here about people who killed one person, or robbed one bank or got nude in public once; for this man, he freaked out and got the media's attention. Of course the article needs sprucing up; but please consider keeping this page. It will gradually blossom. Tinton5 (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- It needs to blossom first, then he can have an article. I'm surprised this hasn't been cited yet, but Other Stuff Exists is a pretty important precedent here. - Richfife (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not a case of WP:BLP1E this was a notable event in western culture. It was a safe and sane dramatic event. The first since 9/11 - and as such should be applauded and remembered. This is a historical event of note by virtual of the safety within a space deemed to be the most dangerous. Pakse 10:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.141.193 (talk)
- Ummm... A little early to be calling it "historical" and "seminal" (from the edit comment) isn't it? - Richfife (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Changed to MOVE - see below Once off yes, but wasn't the Cuban Missile Crisis a once off event? Didn't Jack Ruby get famous for a once off event? I believe this one should stay because of it's iconic status. It's certainly exceptionally notable, just look at Google News stats. It's probable that his actions really show an industry wide problem. No one has claimed that this was a stunt for self-promotion. The guy flipped, did so in a manner that caused instant global fame, and is regarded as a hero by many. His actions though crazed highlight a developing situation of passengers and staff being pushed too far by security and airline policies. This incident is quite likely to be looked back on as "Where it Started". I would say we should instead agree to revisit the AfD in 6-12 months. This incident's impact reflects on so much more than a once off meltdown by a disgruntled employee. Sorry, I have no login as I choose to edit directly. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - You really think he's going to start a social movement? His actions are not 'so much more' than what they are. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- What's with all the weird messianic vibes that keep showing up? How is this different from, say, this scenario: A security guard on the fifth floor of a department store is hassled by a customer, rags them out on the store wide intercom, grabs a hat a he likes and takes off down the fire escape. Cops find him screwing his wife. - Richfife (talk) 07:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- There's an airplane fetish, that's what. Two people killed in a car? Boring! Two people killed in a plane? News! Morenoodles (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- There's a much bigger picture here. The entire industry is struggling with some impossible balances. Security "concerns" vs Passenger convenience, Profitability concerns vs staff morale, Space vs size of people, The innocent cabin crew have become the Airline company point contact for the well documented increasingly angry travelling public. The insistence of the Securocrats on control vs the realities of human nature and needs. Luggage fees vs Carry On behaviours. What this is is an unmanagable, unbalancable set of competing needs. Steven Slater's actions have shown a major policy and system debacle in a human and personal way. It was highly notable and globally published, and it reflects a much larger issue of an entire system breaking down. Notable, encylopedic, historical - and most of all - people want to read it - newspapers don't publish things people don't want to read - of course it belongs in an encylopedia - some people want to read about this guy in more depth than just a oneliner in the JetBlue article. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- These are all very good and valid points but wikipedia is not the place for them as per WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. G
ainLine ♠ ♥ 11:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)- Several mainstream news sites have likened him and his drama to Balloon Boy, Joe the Plumber, and Chesley Sullenberger. Didn't the articles of all three survive AFD? Edison (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- These are all very good and valid points but wikipedia is not the place for them as per WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. G
- There's a much bigger picture here. The entire industry is struggling with some impossible balances. Security "concerns" vs Passenger convenience, Profitability concerns vs staff morale, Space vs size of people, The innocent cabin crew have become the Airline company point contact for the well documented increasingly angry travelling public. The insistence of the Securocrats on control vs the realities of human nature and needs. Luggage fees vs Carry On behaviours. What this is is an unmanagable, unbalancable set of competing needs. Steven Slater's actions have shown a major policy and system debacle in a human and personal way. It was highly notable and globally published, and it reflects a much larger issue of an entire system breaking down. Notable, encylopedic, historical - and most of all - people want to read it - newspapers don't publish things people don't want to read - of course it belongs in an encylopedia - some people want to read about this guy in more depth than just a oneliner in the JetBlue article. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- There's an airplane fetish, that's what. Two people killed in a car? Boring! Two people killed in a plane? News! Morenoodles (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - classic case of WP:BLP1E. Quoting the policy: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." If this guy become really famous down the road which I doubt, then the article can always be recreated.—Chris!c/t 05:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Even if Slater falls back into obscurity, he would have something in common with John Hinckley, Jr (see WP:BLP1E) who did not get up to very much after his assassination attempt, except going to jail. The event in this case does have significance as the first time that a flight attendant has made their own emergency exit, a hero in popular culture and the most outrageous way to quit a job. The event also highlights the rudeness of passengers these days. We can't predict where this event will end as it is still unfolding. I say let the article evolve with the incident and review later. Freelion (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep' - Let's wait for a week to see what happens, then put back deletion on the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.28.251 (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Policy goes the other way: If he's not notable, delete the article and recreate when he is. - Richfife (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- No one is questioning notability with thousands of newspaper reports on him. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- On the contrary, my friend. The only reason this article has been put up for AfD is for the claim of lack of notability. If this AfD ends with a deletion, it will be done because of the presumption of a lack of notability. Since that outcome will strain all credibility, I doubt if even Wikipedia would continue to make that claim. Please vote to Keep.--Marcwiki9 (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- No one is questioning notability with thousands of newspaper reports on him. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment People want to read about this fellow, and Wikipedia is one obvious place. When there's a juicy murder (or celebrity suicide) there are copycats; perhaps now dozens, hundreds of people will be shouting "Take this job and shove it!" Perhaps we should wait a week and see whether wage-slave capitalism collapses. Morenoodles (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Are people really comparing this to an attempt to assassinate a president, or to a nuclear war almost starting? I was so certain that this was WP:BLP1E that I almost blanked the article as a courtesy as soon as I saw it, expecting it to be deleted within a few hours. I don't know why this doesn't seem so obviously cut and dry...am I really missing something?Qwyrxian (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. This is August, or what in Britain is called the "silly season". The floods in Pakistan (just to take one example) are several million times more important, but people don't want to read about that kind of stuff. In contrast to hundreds of thousands of actual endangered humans, Slater (population: one) is a "human interest story"; and if he's not "the common man" then at least he seems closer to that elusive ideal than do any number of cringe-inducing faux-folksy politicians. Morenoodles (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Are people really comparing this to an attempt to assassinate a president, or to a nuclear war almost starting? I was so certain that this was WP:BLP1E that I almost blanked the article as a courtesy as soon as I saw it, expecting it to be deleted within a few hours. I don't know why this doesn't seem so obviously cut and dry...am I really missing something?Qwyrxian (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - Possible compromise solution - So many people are calling for deletion per WP:BLP1E, maybe we need to follow WP:BLP1E....... I see no event article, maybe that is a suitable compromise? Create an event article as that very much deserves an article, and would probably be better to have than an article primarily about the event than one that is lodged under someones name. Whatever happens this incident should somehow find it's way to a wiki article. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Move to an article on the event, and keep. (Thanks to the IP immediately above.) Morenoodles (talk) 10:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Welcome. I'm trying to learn wiki. We all talk about WP:BLP1E, and it opens with some great guidance "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person". Everyone, including me, who is expressing outrage at the prospects of banishment of article wants the issue in wiki, i don't think anyone has yelled that they want it covered in Steven Slater specifically. If he does become mr working class folk hero, we can revisit. Move 24.23.198.90 (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- If we move it it should not be to a page about this incident but to a page about Stewerds wiging out. Lets put it into a wider context.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - If Fuck for Forest has a place on wikipedia so does an article on this dude - lighten up guys! Kotare (talk) 11:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment several actually:
- I do not think we are yet at the threshold of Balloon boy hoax in terms of having a deeper story. An anon editor started a factual summary at Flight attendant to which I added the information on the arraignment.
- Some of the keep votes are merely WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and do not engage any points we have raised re WP:BLP1E. They are arguments to avoid.
- A large volume of media coverage in itself is not sufficient.
- If we move this article to Overhead bin controversy or Notable nonlethal incidents on aircraft and the story just ends with Slater taking a plea deal for the misdemeanor charges, it still is just about one individual which lasted for 2 news cycles. patsw (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - Considering that after less than 2 days, the fan page[1] on Facebook for this individual has over 100,000 followers, I think that itself should show notability of this individual, possibly developing the triggering event. Anakin-Marc "DJ AniZ" Zaeger (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. Given the level of effort required for one to "Like" (not follow) Steven Slater, this claim is nonsense. Notability in the context of an Afd is term of art. Does the article meet the criteria for WP:N? Facebook is coverage but it's trivial coverage. patsw (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep A classic case of BLP1E distortion. The point of that guideline is that we should not have biographies as spinoff articles from notable events if the people in question were ancillary to the event. But this case we have one person, one event, one article. The topic is highly notable, being covered globally in major news media and so merits coverage in some fashion. The name of the article and its scope is not a matter for AFD as it can be addressed by ordinary editing in accordance with our editng policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- thats not how I read it, BLP1E says that we should not have articels about people who are notable fro one event, and nothing else. Not tnat we should not have articels about people whoes only notability is being involved in an event.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Come on Mr. Slater, you keep commenting here but fail to disclose your COI. How were you editing from jail yesterday anyhow?--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Blast and dam found out. OK I admit it I am in fact called Steven Slater.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I know anons have no suffrage here, but I don't care. Once the topic makes it to the front of Google news, and the Wikipedia article is in the short list of links, it passes as notable and gets to stay. I mean, there is an article about some random midwest music store that no one has ever heard of, surely this deserves to stay. --65.10.51.35 (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Not everything that gets to the front of Google news gets a Wikipedia article. Are you suggesting that as a new criterion? patsw (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- CommentThe Washington Post has another article about Slaters action, in which they say Slater has "has become a folk hero to his fellow stewards of the sky. Also, to everyone." The article said "Hit that slide. Soon the phrase will become this generation's 'blow this popsicle stand'" and the article notes the appearance of that definition in Urban Dictionary. (Washington Posts's prediction and noting of a neologism, not mine). New York Magazine noted new ballads about Slater's escape by Jimmy Fallon ("When you're mad as hell and can't take it anymore, ya gotta get 2 beers and jump") and others. Slater expressed the feelings of millions who deal with rude, childish demanding customers and who dream of chucking the job in one great splash. Edison (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep He's getting a LOT of media coverage at the moment. Perhaps he is notable for only one event—but I would say it is probably one of the most notable single events of recent months. —WackyWace converse | contribs 14:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep but rewrite and move to JetBlue Airways Flight 1052, an article we do not presently have. The event is notable and we routinely cover unusual, non-fatal airliner incidents; for precedents, see: Eastwind Airlines Flight 517, Continental Airlines Flight 1883, 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion, JetBlue Airways Flight 292, Northwest Airlines Flight 327, CityFlyer Express Flight 8106, America West Flight 556, Korean Air Lines Flight 85, 2007 San Francisco International Airport runway incursion. A particularly relevant precedent is Northwest Airlines Flight 188, the flight where the pilots overflew their destination by hundreds of kilometers; we have an article on the incident, not the pilots. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Note: I have also left notes about this AfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It's an incident about a flight attendant and we already have Flight attendant. It is already summarized there in about 50 words. patsw (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break 2
- Keep but rewrite and move - The incident is clearly notable. The article should be rewritten so that it's not a BLP about Steven Slater, but about the incident. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep': This man is being viewed as a hero to the disgruntled working public. There is no reason to remove him from the records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.129.126.127 (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep but rewrite and move - Agreed with A Quest For Knowledge. Focus on incident not individual. AlexJohnTorres12 (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: Cult hero in the making. It's easy to judge people like Slater as persons of 'minor importance'.Maxis ftw (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC) -Addendum: Like the Salahi's crashing the whitehouse dinner [2009 U.S. state dinner security breaches], rewrite this article about the incident itself; as per a quest for knowledge.Maxis ftw (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Strong keep. This article seems to be receiving the same kind of hysteria that was visited on the "Balloon Boy" article when that story first happened, with people saying there shouldn't be a news article because it was a fleeting trivial news story. Of course now, many months down the road, Balloon Boy is still a talking point and a notable reference that will still be popping up years down the line, and calls to delete the article now sound kind of silly, and I can just about guarantee you that the Steven Slater incident will be the same way. Just because it's current does not mean it's not noteworthy. Whether he's a "hero" or a "criminal" is, of course, irrelevant to whether or not the article should be deleted, but it seems obvious to me that either way it should be kept. For the public reaction alone it is noteworthy. MrBook (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I saw a question about this at the BLP noticeboard, but Slater is the poster child for BLP1E---a policy I don't particularly like and think gets over used. But in a month this event will be all but forgotten. This is a one hit event where nobody is going to be asking "who slater is" or "has he done something like this before." It's purely news.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. This article is now a cultural meme and is therefore the traceable lineage of the soon to be term "thanks, it's been great." as well as "grab two beers and jump". which is associated to Jimmy Fallon. This should not be associated to the Flight in question as the story is based on the actions of Steven Slater.---Indigo.Buffalo 13:36. 11 August 2010 (CST)
- Delete. BLP1E, clearly. There is other evidence that cannot yet be cited that this may become a meme, but until that's shown reliably, this is just a news event. Wikinews is over thataway. --MASEM (t) 18:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, has received extensive media coverage, and there's been talk of book-deals and maybe even a movie. Let's wait and see how it plays out. Helvetica (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, textbook example of BLP1E. An article might be constructed around the incident itself, but it should not be based on this article. Horologium (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep this guy is notable and is very likely to become even more so. Citybrand (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Obviously notable, with reliable sources. BE——Critical__Talk 20:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment None of these recent keep votes speak to why WP:BLP1E, WP:1E and WP:NOT should not apply. Memo to the keep voters: Notable (in the sense of getting noticed) is not sufficient. I concede that he's gotten a lot of publicity, but in the long run, nothing of consequence has happened to anyone but Steve Slater in all of this. It is an incident with global coverage of something totally inconsequential. Already, the medias's frenzy with it is eroding and we've moving on. patsw (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment On the contrary Patsw, many keep votes speak to why WP:BLP1E does not apply. Go back and re-read them, with a copy of WP:BLP1E in front of your face. You will see why the delete voters have neither read nor understand the BLP1E paragraph. And I have a second on the contrary. Can you back up the statement that Notable is not sufficient? I thought notable was the criteria for an article? Notable, in common english, means that the subject is worthy of notice. According to WP:GNG, this subject is clearly notable. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I can. Read Wikipedia:GNG, which you cite. Note the last bullet point: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. And the footnote reads: Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. Now go look at WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOT#NEWS. Wikipedia doesn't cover news reporting; Wikinews does. That's a different project. Horologium (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think you are trying to say something here by transcribing some bullet points and footnotes into this record, but there is no logic that I can use to try to understand what you are saying. I agree that Editors might reach a consensus one way or the other. I am adding my points to help reach a consensus, and so are you. Why restate the obvious? Merely to point out that we might engage in this debate? To point out that it could end either way? And furthermore, all of your "for examples" listed about have nothing to do with this article. But, Thanks for participating. It's still kind of fun. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 02:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I was quoting, in their entirety, sections from the GNG. You asked, rather pointedly, whether Patsw could "back up the statement that 'notable' is not sufficient". I quoted a section of the GNG to note that sometimes notability is not sufficient. This is a minor news story, despite the carpet-bombing coverage it has received (it's apparently a slow news week), and the incident should be covered, not Steven Slater. This is something that should be covered by Wikinews, and may merit coverage in Flight attendant (it is) and perhaps a story about the incident itself (which is still a redlink). Horologium (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I think I get you now. I still think that you and I would have a major disagreement about what GNG really means, and how one decides what is notable and what is not. You might say, for instance, that something is notable but not independent, like a label on a product. I might say, that label is not notable at all. These are important semantic differences. I still vote to keep. I suspect that you would still vote the other way. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. I will stipulate:
- I was quoting, in their entirety, sections from the GNG. You asked, rather pointedly, whether Patsw could "back up the statement that 'notable' is not sufficient". I quoted a section of the GNG to note that sometimes notability is not sufficient. This is a minor news story, despite the carpet-bombing coverage it has received (it's apparently a slow news week), and the incident should be covered, not Steven Slater. This is something that should be covered by Wikinews, and may merit coverage in Flight attendant (it is) and perhaps a story about the incident itself (which is still a redlink). Horologium (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think you are trying to say something here by transcribing some bullet points and footnotes into this record, but there is no logic that I can use to try to understand what you are saying. I agree that Editors might reach a consensus one way or the other. I am adding my points to help reach a consensus, and so are you. Why restate the obvious? Merely to point out that we might engage in this debate? To point out that it could end either way? And furthermore, all of your "for examples" listed about have nothing to do with this article. But, Thanks for participating. It's still kind of fun. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 02:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I can. Read Wikipedia:GNG, which you cite. Note the last bullet point: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. And the footnote reads: Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. Now go look at WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOT#NEWS. Wikipedia doesn't cover news reporting; Wikinews does. That's a different project. Horologium (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
“ | Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. | ” |
- Regrettable keep, not something I would normally do but the coverage is there. Marcus Qwertyus 21:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: Should definitly be kept. As stated before, If Numa-Numa can have a page, this guy can too. Merging it into a generic page about flight attendants is not appropriate as this specifically refers to one incident and one person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.120.35.193 (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment that's a silly argument, numa-numa is 6 years old but is still resonably popular and in fact is rated as the second most popular viral video of all time by some sources, references and the likes have continued to appear in mainstream media sources. This is only several days old so we have no way of knowing what, if anything, will be the long lasting effect of this. If you do know the future, I would like the money so can you give me some info that will help like next weeks lottery numbers? Please give it privately or it will defeat the purposes. Cheers Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: Fairly notable, with a wide variety of sources. Once the storm has passed, and the facts of the case been estabilished, this article should boil down to a fairly decent little article on the event. LukeSurl t c 22:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: Chesley Sullenberger has a page and he's famous for one event as well. I've seen about as much news coverage of Steven Slater as I saw about Chesley Sullenberger. 68.45.109.70 (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It is comical though. Can single event ever be applied given that this was covered by the worldwide massmedia? Like the first comment about that viral video. Or is this a case of other crap exists? --Luckymelon (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: This is NOT a subject of WP:BLP1E which reads: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, AND if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual".. Slater is NOT likely to remain a low-profile individual. He is likely to have a reality show, a book deal, and much more because his name and story has become a valuable brand that captures audience attention, and that's what drives continuing media. Harry4000 (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: The number of sources and the media coverage does not affects its notability (for more or for less). We are working for an Encyclopedia, not for a gossip magazine. Caiaffa (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Rename: I said keep last time, but on second thought, this should probably be renamed "Steven Slater plane incident" or something similar as the incident is the notable thing, not Slater himself. 68.45.109.70 (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: He's a hero. The term "pull a Steve Slater" is already creeping into our vernacular. His actions are going to have people review how customer service representatives in any capacity are treated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrfoldes (talk • contribs) 01:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep': Obviously this is the first ever episode of this kind that would directly relate to the current security crisis that local and international airports are having all over the world. The difference is this time the contribution came from an airline worker and because the physical act was not directed at either the crew or passengers, it will without a doubt add another law to the Patriot Act.--American Values • talkAmerican Values (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)American Values This template must be substituted. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: If the Numa Numa guy has a wiki then Steven Slater deserves one as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.129.126.127 (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:ONEEVENT, WP:RECENT, WP:NOT#NEWS, etc. And please, no more arguments about how this person's notability is certain to increase with book deals, multiple appearances on Oprah, made-for-tv movies and the like. As the situation exists now, this is an unsuitable topic for a Wikipedia article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - this person does not have to have been famous as an actor or musician or related to politics. He did become part of current Pop Culture, (example) Susan Boyle. ring a bell? He did do something wrong but, he acted in a way a portion of americans wish they could without losing their jobs. don't judge him too soon, you don't know what might come of this in the future. Wikipedia is made for "everything." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.209.175 (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC) — 70.173.209.175 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- No, it is not. This is an encyclopaedia, and topics must be appropriate for an encyclopaedia to warrant inclusion. -- Lear's Fool 03:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Great stories and exciting gossip are welcome elsewhere, but we do not preserve someone's bad day in a pseudo encyclopedic article. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Biographies of the person have begun to appear in major news sources, extending this beyond just a single event as he becomes known for being himself. BloodmoonIvy (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
- Keep, though consider moving to an event-centered article rather than a person-specific one. There can be little debate now that the incident has sparked a larger discussion in the populace about both general employee disenchantment as well as simmering problems with air travel. (And, of course, there can be absolutely no complaints about notability.) This is not the type of article that BLP1E was designed for, and the attempted rigid adherence to an incomplete idea of BLP1E (whilst completely ignoring what it actually says) is rather silly. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break 3
- KEEP BECAUSE HE IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm just kidding, just kidding. I say delete, because although his story is a hilarious one, it's not to the point where it warrants an article. Maybe if there's more media coverage surrounding this guy and it turns into a saga of some sorts, then it would be appropriate to have an article on him. Sidenote: I got here by typing his name into the search box, fully expecting to for an article on him to exist. And I have plenty of edits on Wikipedia, but most of my contributions are under a different IP. No need to mark my presence with suspicion. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 06:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep-- the amount of news coverage on this is explosive, and the a NY times reporter wrote an article comparing him to Chesley B. Sullenberger III from the Hudson river landing. He may not have been notable at the time when this article was nominated for deletion, but he certainly is now. Nomader (Talk) 07:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep -- generated significant general discussion about the working conditions for flight attendants, along with parodies of the event. If necessary, convert into article about the event, but not delete or integrate into the general flight attendant article. 118.208.40.174 (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep based on the amount of news coverage. It is a mischaracterization of WP:BLP1E to say this is a classic case. WP:BLP1E Requires that he both be notable for a one time even AND that he remain a low-profile individual. He is no longer a low profile individual. He is being extensively covered by many news organizations, including The New York Times. Plus the story keeps growing. Witness this article published today JetBlue’s Response to a Fed-Up Employee’s Exit, which queries how Jet Blue should deal with the publicity. Steven Slater is no longer a low-profile individual. —Ute in DC (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - as I believe that in the last two days the incident has attained notability. I agree that the article should be about the event rather than the person. I also draw attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan McMahon (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Robertson (Australian) as former one-event biographies for comparison. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to jetBlue Airways. For all the coverage about Steven Slater it is just about a single incident which was over in seconds. The background of his life is only of interest to news organisations in connection with his reaction to the disruptive passenger. He might forge a public career in the future but that can't be certain; for the meantime the incident is notable but Steven Slater as a person is not. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- MOTION TO CLOSE AS NO CONSENSUS: Per precedent of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colorado_balloon_incident. We've had scads of people weighing in, and at best we are heading to no consensus. We can revisit in a few months.--Milowent • talkblp-r 12:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Redirect to JetBlue Airways (moved from Delete) per Sam Blacketer. This person is not notable, but the current coverage at JetBlue Airways seems reasonable to me. -- Lear's Fool 12:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. Could someone explain how Steven Slater has a non-low-profile after the media moves on? His last few seconds of his 15 minutes of fame are nearly over. Unlike Chesley Sullenberger, he is not likely to be honored by the airline industry and his occupational groups for a lifetime of achievement in his profession. Unlike the Balloon boy hoax there's no deeper story here about premediating a media hoax and child abuse. Unlike the many notable performers in arts and sports cited for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS above, which is not an argument to make, but an argument to avoid, he doesn't have a record which distinquishes himself among others in his category. If this WP:AfD passes, we will have to establish a category for persons who have saturated global media for 48 hours so that any person at some threshold of media coverage ought to have a Wikipedia article for any reason or no reason at all. Slater's story is superficial: he blew up in unprofessional way, deployed the evacuation chute, and was arrested. Everything else is coverage about the coverage. patsw (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. A redirect to Jet Blue Airways is not correct. The actions of Steve Slater were related to his employment in the airline industry as a flight attendant, and not specifically to employment at Jet Blue. patsw (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- This event receives a brief mention as an incident related to JetBlue Airways in the article, which strikes me as being perfectly reasonable. If you're questioning which article the coverage should be in, you should bring it up on the relevant talkpage, but for the moment, this remains a plausible search term for an even related to JetBlue Airways. -- Lear's Fool 13:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Redirect probably to Jet Blue Airways. No evidence of significant long lasting notability at the current time so article not suitable per WP:BLP1E. Even if a seperate article is warranted, it should be on the incident not the person so the article should be renamed. If significant long lasting notability eventuates, the article can of course be recreated Nil Einne (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep and retitle/reshape as an article about the event. The level of coverage has been enough, in my view, to justify an article about this. I agree with those who say WP:BLP1E is being misapplied in arguments to delete; what it indicates is that we should probably not have an article about the person, but about the event for which they are known. Propaniac (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The advantage that Wikipedia has over other sites is in its ability to combine the most up to date information with background information, something that a news site can't feasibly do. First and foremost, this is a reference. I'm sure that some people have mentioned "Wikinews" and the truth is, nobody reads Wikinews, nobody. Although my guess is that the Steven Slater will not prove to be historically notable, nor even a trivia question, my guess is no better than anybody's else's. I imagine it will be nominated again a couple of months from now, at which time the answer to the question "Do you remember the flight attendant who cussed and slid down the slide?" will probably be "No, what are you talking about". For now, the no consensus result, that sets no precedent one way or another, will be satisfactory. Mandsford 14:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete This event, and the person involved in it, will be long forgotten in six months. This has no real notability except as any of a myriad of "fifteen minutes of fame" stories do. It doesn't rise to the level of needing an encyclopedic article. The simple mention of the incident that exists on JetBlue's article is sufficient coverage. Ithizar (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The article isn't even clear about what happened and if this is to believed, things happened very differently G
ainLine ♠ ♥ 16:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Response I am unclear what the relevance of that article is to this discussion. The fact that there are conflicting stories does not affect whether or not the Steven Slater article is about someone who is sufficiently notable. —Ute in DC (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Because while the arguments for deletion are all on WP policy grounds, the arguments to keep are all that Mr Slater is some sort of folk hero leading to a lot of crystal balling about his notability. This shows that its just as likely something else happened and the things were embellished by the media to make a better story. The article isn't even very clear about what happened and when it all boils down, its about a guy who flipped out, and quit his job (in albeit spectacular fashion). The fact that it made it to a few novelty news sections doesn't impart notability. The issues that have been highlighted by this incident are certainly noteworthy and an article or section in flight attendant about the changing role and work conditions of flight crew could include a piece on this, that is where this guy belongs, not with an article dedicated to him. G
ainLine ♠ ♥ 18:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)- Oppose merge to Jet Blue, since nothing in his actions were specifically a reaction to factors at Jet Blue which are different from other airlines. A merger to Flight attendant would make somewhat more sense, about as much as meerging Balloon Boy to Balloon. Clearly you have not looked at the coverage at Google News, since the 4597 instances of coverage includes respected news sources worldwide, and not "a few novelty news sites." Other claims that coverage "will soon diminish" and he will soon be forgotten are pure crystal-ball gazing, in contrast to the sources cited above which state that he is already a "folk hero" to many who are tired of dealing with obnoxious customers. Edison (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Because while the arguments for deletion are all on WP policy grounds, the arguments to keep are all that Mr Slater is some sort of folk hero leading to a lot of crystal balling about his notability. This shows that its just as likely something else happened and the things were embellished by the media to make a better story. The article isn't even very clear about what happened and when it all boils down, its about a guy who flipped out, and quit his job (in albeit spectacular fashion). The fact that it made it to a few novelty news sections doesn't impart notability. The issues that have been highlighted by this incident are certainly noteworthy and an article or section in flight attendant about the changing role and work conditions of flight crew could include a piece on this, that is where this guy belongs, not with an article dedicated to him. G
- Keep Important cultural landmark. Spontaneous reaction in broad swathe of the public, renders the individual symbolic of a range of important ideas that needed succinct expression and that found it in what was really a very small act that was not apparently even recorded by video or in sound. Nevertheless just the description of the brief unfolding of a relatively unimportant event has apparently captured so many people's attention. I therefore think the individual behind that event should have a Wiki article for reference purposes in keeping with Wikipedia's need to serve as a resource for significant ideas. Bus stop (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment for keep This is insane, I didn't think it would be this global. Here is a Korean report about it. [2] Additionally, I went ahead and created JetBlue Flight 1052. I don't know if it would qualify as an "incident" but I thought I'd threw it in there.--Hourick (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep but rewrite and move to JetBlue Airways Flight 1052. Cindamuse (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I SECOND THE MOTION TO CLOSE DUE TO LACK OF CONSENSUS. Cindamuse (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Strongest possible ever in a million light years delete - I also object to any premature close. This is not a vote it is a policy related debate...for which this is global and important cultural landmark has no weight at all in the closing position. One event notability only.Off2riorob (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand... Isn't one event notability enough? WP:NOT PAPER. BE——Critical__Talk 19:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment — Reliable sources may not use the terms that I used above (important cultural landmark) but I think some reliable sources have characterized the event in terms similar to those. Bus stop (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Its trash, trash , trash, trash, a fleeting trash at that, keep it if you like it but it is valueless un-encyclopedic trash and imo if you like it and want it, there are many wikis you can create yourself and its free, please don't degrade the quality of this one. Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nice WP:IDONTLIKEIT tantrum, which does not contribute much to the present discussion. Edison (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Glad you like it, my commets are in reply to a lot of the keep he is really famous and iconin comments, its rubbish, utter one event rubbish, do with it what you like but its crap and not what the wikipedia is here for, please consider hosting such crap at other locations, well famous, iconic, yes really must keep this crap.Off2riorob (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, many of the keep vote represent WP:ILIKEIT and they should be ignored when closing this afd.—Chris!c/t 19:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nice WP:IDONTLIKEIT tantrum, which does not contribute much to the present discussion. Edison (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Its trash, trash , trash, trash, a fleeting trash at that, keep it if you like it but it is valueless un-encyclopedic trash and imo if you like it and want it, there are many wikis you can create yourself and its free, please don't degrade the quality of this one. Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment — Reliable sources may not use the terms that I used above (important cultural landmark) but I think some reliable sources have characterized the event in terms similar to those. Bus stop (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand... Isn't one event notability enough? WP:NOT PAPER. BE——Critical__Talk 19:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: It seems like the obvious and logical solution here is to move the article to JetBlue Airways Flight 1052. Doing so would put the focus on the incident rather than on the person involved in the incident, and I believe this would resolve any BLP1E issues because the article would no longer be a BLP article. –BMRR (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Snow delete, and who ever suggested this be merged with the Flight Attendant article must of been "smoking the reefer;" what a stupid idea. --A3RO (mailbox) 19:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment This nomination is really bullshit. This event is OBVIOUSLY notable, it is sourced to multiple RS. That should be the end of the story here. BE——Critical__Talk 19:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Snow Delete clearly WP:BLP1E. "Popular" does not mean "notable". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Padillah (talk • contribs) 12 August 2010
- Comment: WP:SNOW in no way applies here, at least not in favor of deletion. For those who aren't aware, SNOW is a call for early closure in one direction if there's not a "snowball in hell's" chance of it going the other way. The last time I counted, there were quite a few more "keep" than "delete" votes, and the trend has been towards more keep votes as the debate has progressed. So if it's going to be closed early per WP:SNOW, it would have to be for "keep" or "no consensus." -Helvetica (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, per all of the excellent reasons above. He has achieved far more notable than most other BLP1E articles that were decided to be the level of notable necessary to override the rule. This man seems to override it as well. His cult status and the ongoing reams of coverage attest to that. SilverserenC 20:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Question Okay, now that I've studied it, the question here seems to be whether this event, which will be known mainly relative to the name of the person, and which is about that person's speech, should be under that person's name, or a name which Wikipedia gives that event (or which we get from RS). So the question is, do RS give an alternate name for the event as the primary name they give to the incident? Is the flight number really the title RS give this event? BE——Critical__Talk 20:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- And BTW... many of the votes above seem to be about notability, as mine was. This nom is unusual. BE——Critical__Talk 20:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- He's almost achieving cult status User:Hourick... he will be more famous... he is episodically emblematic of a completed scenario and will be added to the culture's legend User:Masterknighted..His cult status User:Silver seren .. Important cultural landmark.User:Bus stop .. the amount of news coverage on this is explosive, and the a NY times reporter wrote an article comparing him to Chesley B. Sullenberger III from the Hudson river landing. He may not have been notable at the time when this article was nominated for deletion, but he certainly is now User:Nomader..the incident has sparked a larger discussion in the populace about both general employee disenchantment as well as simmering problems with air travel.User:bbatsell ..don't judge him too soon, you don't know what might come of this in the future. Wikipedia is made for "everything."{{User:IP:70.173.209.175]] ..it will without a doubt add another law to the Patriot Act.User:American Values..Keep: He's a hero. The term "pull a Steve Slater" is already creeping into our vernacularUser:Jrfoldes ..Keep: Should definitly be kept. As stated before, If Numa-Numa can have a page, this guy can too User:67.120.35.193 and there's been talk of book-deals and maybe even a movieUser:Helvetica..He is likely to have a reality show, a book deal, and much more because his name and story has become a valuable brand User:Harry4000.. hilarious.. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Right it is funny, kind of, but I'm not sure of the point you're trying for? BE——Critical__Talk 20:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- He's almost achieving cult status User:Hourick... he will be more famous... he is episodically emblematic of a completed scenario and will be added to the culture's legend User:Masterknighted..His cult status User:Silver seren .. Important cultural landmark.User:Bus stop .. the amount of news coverage on this is explosive, and the a NY times reporter wrote an article comparing him to Chesley B. Sullenberger III from the Hudson river landing. He may not have been notable at the time when this article was nominated for deletion, but he certainly is now User:Nomader..the incident has sparked a larger discussion in the populace about both general employee disenchantment as well as simmering problems with air travel.User:bbatsell ..don't judge him too soon, you don't know what might come of this in the future. Wikipedia is made for "everything."{{User:IP:70.173.209.175]] ..it will without a doubt add another law to the Patriot Act.User:American Values..Keep: He's a hero. The term "pull a Steve Slater" is already creeping into our vernacularUser:Jrfoldes ..Keep: Should definitly be kept. As stated before, If Numa-Numa can have a page, this guy can too User:67.120.35.193 and there's been talk of book-deals and maybe even a movieUser:Helvetica..He is likely to have a reality show, a book deal, and much more because his name and story has become a valuable brand User:Harry4000.. hilarious.. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break 4
- Delete When I read WP:BLP1E this is the type of article I think about. The weight of the world of fluff journalism is against me/us, but I'm !voting my principles here.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. This is an AfD that seems to be heading to no consensus. Do not rename the article in the meantime. The debate for that can wait. Wikipedia has policies for naming articles, and it is certain that Jet Blue Flight 1052 will not be how the world remembers this incident in the same sense that KAL 007 and TWA 800 are the names given by history to those events. patsw (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - prime example of WP:BLP1E. This is the kind of article that policy is written to prevent. We're not exactlyu talking about Chelsey Sullenberger here. Robofish (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Keep, definitely a well documented event with coverage both National and International. I count this as more or less equivalent to Joe the Plumber and we got an article on him.Naraht (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Urging Comment D...E...L...E...T...E!! --A3RO (mailbox) 23:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong soliloquize 00:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BLP1E. SnottyWong soliloquize 00:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BLP1E. I agree with Robofish completely. PvsKllKsVp (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep He passes WP:BIO and WP:RS. We can always revisit the article in four to six months to see if he was just a flash in the pan. Otherwise, let it slide. :) Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- 'Comment @Regent, your comment goes against everything encyclopedic; so we decide to come back later and see if he is really just a "one-hit wonder?" -- I can tell you now, HE IS; per BLP1E, this article has to be deleted!; or atleast mentioned as a section in another article pertaining to either the airline or the flight number. Simple. --A3RO (mailbox) 01:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment to all those !voting to delete per WP:BIO1E: this event is a reasonably widely covered incident involving Jetblue Airways, meaning it is not unreasonable for it to get a brief mention in the "Incidents" section of that article. I agree that this individual is not notable, and that this event is not sufficently notable to warrant an article. However, given that there is an appropriate level of coverage in the article on Jetblue Airways would it not be better to simply redirect this article to that section, thus retaining it as a plausible search term? -- Lear's Fool 01:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Very Strong Delete - As I fear that this may lead to a new trend of people doing crazy and off the wall things, just in order to get a wikipedia page about them. We really should begin to strictly enforce WP:BLP1E, or eventually it will begin to get out of hand.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to JetBlue Airways Flight 1052 or something of the sort. The incident is notable, yet the person fails WP:BLP1E. gidonb (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Substantial precedents and even a notability essay already address unusual aircraft incidents:
- Wikipedia's coverage of aviation accidents and incidents is especially comprehensive and high quality, thanks to the work of some diligent, knowledgeable editors. Wikipedia does an unusually good job covering this material. As an aviation incident, JetBlue Airways flight 1052 is an event Wikipedia will want good coverage of next month, next year and next decade regardless of whether the general public remembers Steven Slater.
- Our Aviation accidents and incidents article says the term "Aircraft incident" is formally defined in the Convention on International Civil Aviation as "an occurrence other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft, which affects or could affect the safety of operations." This event will be considered an "incident"; Slater has been charged with "reckless endangerment" and an internal JetBlue memo leaked to the Wall Street Journal emphasizes the safety threat Slater's action posed.
- We have a task force just for articles about aviation accidents and incidents: WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force. The task force's work includes many, many articles about non-accident incidents; here's a small sample: Eastwind Airlines Flight 517, Continental Airlines Flight 1883, 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion, JetBlue Airways Flight 292, Northwest Airlines Flight 327, CityFlyer Express Flight 8106, America West Flight 556, Korean Air Lines Flight 85, 2007 San Francisco International Airport runway incursion and Northwest Airlines Flight 188
- There is an essay (not a guideline) with a section specifically addressing the treatment of accidents and incidents: WikiProject Aviation/Notability#Accidents
- There are standard templates for these types of articles: WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Templates
- The task force has a proposed style guideline: WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Accidents)
- There are annual lists of aircraft accidents and incidents; see: Category:21st-century aviation accidents and incidents
- Mr. Slater's personal fame may indeed be fleeting. If he wants to avoid 7 years in prison, he needs to keep a low profile until his case is resolved. By then, the public may have moved on in which case his hypothetical book and movie deals may have evaporated.