The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. It could also be thought of as a "procedural close," as has been suggested by a couple of editors below, or, more metaphorically, as cutting the gordian knot.

I'm explicitly invoking WP:IAR and WP:BOLD with this close (I'm actually not sure I've ever done the former before), and ask that folks bear that in mind. This discussion is simply not going to reach consensus, and is an unnecessary drain on time and resources for as long as it stays open. As such I am closing it several days early, which very much goes against my normal stance that AfDs should essentially always run the full 7 days (I've previously expressed this view strongly elsewhere, and this close is an exception to that general view). I don't think this AfD should run the full week for reasons described below.

A major part of the problem here is simply that well over half of the !votes below (both keeps and deletes, and I've read through them all) simply do not provide any valid rationale whatsoever. Some comments are somewhat to very snarky and nothing else, some make an argument that does not at all reference Wikipedia policy or guidelines, and some simply reference WP:NOTNEWS, WP:N, or other guidelines or policies without actually tying them to an argument about why this should be kept or deleted (which is required in an AfD). A lot of the discussion here relates more to personal feelings (again from both sides) than our policies and guidelines for content. Given that, I think that this AfD is fundamentally broken in a sense, and that no admin can reliably determine consensus because most of the AfD is filled with bad "data" so to speak. Put another way, there is far too much chaff and very little wheat here, and I don't think any admin should feel comfortable judging consensus in a situation like that (I don't at all mean this as a judgment on those who have commented—I think part of the issue is that people are intentionally, and understandably, limiting the length of their comments given the kilobytes already expended, but that has resulted in a lot of "per policy x" comments that are more like votes than reasoned arguments).

What is needed now is an end to discussion and a bit of perspective. Wait a couple of weeks, or a month, then re-run this if that seems like a good idea. I'm quite certain, and I think most of you would agree, that it will be much easier to ascertain consensus one way or another at that point when we have a bit of distance from the current cable news cycle, and since we are not on a deadline, and since I don't see WP:HARM as an intrinsic issue here if the article is kept at least for awhile, we should take the time to get it right when it comes to the question of whether this topic is Wiki-worthy or not, rather than basing that decision on a flawed AfD that unfolded in a fluid news environment and an overheated Wiki-environment.

AfDs of this length and drama level are not really acceptable and I think we all know that. They are usually a waste of time and energy and determine little or nothing in the end. As several have suggested we probably need a community discussion about how to deal with big, breaking (but maybe only ephemeral, or maybe not) news events like these. Should these kind of articles be created in the first place, immediately after a story breaks? Probably not. Should they then be immediately put up for AfD? Probably not either. Yet both of these things happen routinely, and we routinely get the situation we have here. Additional community guidance about these matters is sorely needed (it's another reason why I think a firm "keep" or "delete" close here by an admin would be somewhat presumptuous), and perhaps the best reason to close the AfD now is to redirect the energy here into that kind of discussion.

If anyone feels inclined to take this to deletion review (particularly because of the early close, which I cheerfully admit is out of process but I think very much a good idea) then by all means feel free to do so. But please—pretty please, with a cherry on top—think twice or thrice before doing that. Were this to be closed as either a delete or a keep a DRV would essentially be inevitable as I think we all know (and for the reasons expressed above I think either would be a bad close), however a no consensus close does not shut the door on any option and as such I think a DRV would likely only be a further waste of time (but again, if you disagree, have at it). A procedural "no consensus" close let's us gain a bit of distance from the issue, perhaps allows a general and much needed community discussion to develop on the topic of what to do about "breaking big news" articles and their subsequent mammoth-sized AfDs, and (most importantly) will give us a chance to truly gauge consensus about this particular article in a much more accurate fashion at some point in the very near future where we would, I think, see a lot more light and a lot less heat. I think closing this now in this way is the right move, but if the community disagrees that's of course fine with me.

I'll be online for another hour or so for immediate questions or comments, and then available again tomorrow for further discussion if need be. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado balloon incident[edit]

Colorado balloon incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not for news reports; work on this article should be directed to wikinews:Homemade balloon carries 6-year-old boy away in Colorado. TJRC (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not at all unfair. The same criterion I believe called for the deletion of the Falcon Heene article calls for the deletion of the same material in another article. I'm merely being consistent. The fact that the material moved from one article to another does not make a difference. TJRC (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel you are. The previous AfD was in favor of merging. You are essentially rehashing the same AfD after the merger, and you did not deign to link to the previous AfD that had everyone's positions. 71.174.73.50 (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I acknowledge your feelings, but we disagree. Whether one article should be merged to another is a separate question of whether the other article is worthy of keeping. But the point made by xeno, above, is a good one. It would have been good to point to the related AFD so that, to the extent the comments in that AFD bear on this one, they could be taken into account. I apologize for missing that. TJRC (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should consider writing an essay on this... Umbralcorax (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep for two reasons: the nature of the incident-in-progress is highly unusual (not unlike an industrial accident due to human error), and the family involved were already (albeit marginally) public figures. I suspect the ballooning is what made the Heenes interesting enough to put on TV in the first place. Schweiwikist (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: He was never in the f*****g thing in the first place. No incident. Nada. Strong delete. Total washout, should never have been covered. Schweiwikist (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So even though an airport was shut down, flights rerouted, a military search crew deployed across 9 counties covered in wilderness, there was "no incident". Pardon me, but I find that laughable. Whether the kid was missing, located, dashed against rocks, or the entire incident was a hoax doesn't change the resources used and national attention given. It had an impact, and I bet anyone trying to get out of the Denver airport would strongly disagree with your sentiment about there being "no incident". --75.34.181.114 (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, note how much discussion without consensus has transpired since my strikethrough. Be that as it may, the nature of this incident changes once Falcon Heene is determined not to be part and parcel of the Heene balloon. What I would recommend is that the incident now ought properly to be called the Falcon Heene Balloon Media Panic of 2009, not unlike the panic triggered by the Mercury Theatre on the air in 1938. Now you’ve got notability. Ultimately this article was started on WP prematurely. So I'll change my vote to Keep and Move to new name. ---Schweiwikist (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Arbitrary Section Break (After they found the kid)[edit]

No, it doesn't change the fact that it was a serious event that earned an entire day of media attention.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A day's worth of media attention" is exactly why we have WP:NOTNEWS. This is a great candidate for Wikinews. It does not make sense to twist Wikipedia into being Wikinews, too. TJRC (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We will see in the coming weeks if this develops into something more. It can be reproposed then, there is no urgency now.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the memes and lampooning that have occurred since they found the kid, it is very likely that this will meet Wikipedia's notability standards soon, if it hasn't already. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the irony is that the news response to this incident may itself become notable, precisely because everyone was chasing a ghost. Of course, the not-yet-written/please-don't-write-it-today aricle News response to Colorado balloon incident is an entirely different article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
QueryThe first and second parts of your point I get, but I'm curious how you feel WP:COATRACK fits in to this... Umbralcorax (talk)
I'm not sure I understand your question. I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but there is the very real possibility that the news coverage of today's event will be cited in the future as an example of how a minor event (helium balloon goes awry) can become a top news story merely because a kid is in danger. It might also be cited in psychology textbooks that discuss how people react to various news events even if the news events are based on misinformation. However, until this happens, the "News response to..." link above should remain red. By the way, this incident itself could become wiki-notable independent of today's news coverage if it changes the way journalists, police, airlines and airports, or balloon-hobbyists operate.davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming that Umbralcorax was talking to me. It's a COATRACK because of the discussion of his parents' appearance on a tawdry reality TV show. It's cited, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the incident described, and nothing to do with the child (in the article's previous incarnation as a BLP about the child). Horologium (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well she had a movie made about her accident - there will be no movies about this one! - Ahunt (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ssh! Don't tell Disney! =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiki-notability≠real-world notability. Technically, "I saw it on the news" is by definition real-world notability. This is why we have guidelines like "notnews" and "significant, non-trivial coverage" as well as topic-related guidelines. Absent those, every sports game that ever made the national newswires would be wiki-notable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why having the story on Wikipedia bothers you. Many people--myself included--would like to read about this on Wikipedia. No one is forcing you to read, or even look at, this story. This discussion amazes me more than the story itself. 74.241.105.140 (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC) .[reply]
  • I'm bothered by the fact that it's mentioned any where. I can understand why the local stations picked it up, but then the national media jumped on board, even though it doesn't pertain to anything outside of Colorado. And they're still talking about it. How is it news if it happened yesterday? How is it new? And why is everyone reporting it if it's not true? We all know it's a false report, but people are writing an article about something that never happened. We're helping perpetuate a lie. It's also trivia, so we're also justifying the news media's decision to waste our time with the story. It doesn't reflect badly on the family, but the news media. We're blaming the family, even though the news media are the ones who are wasting our time. Let's also look in the mirror. Wikipedia is also wasting everyone's time with this stuff.--Drknkn (talk) 06:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are not "helping perpetuate a lie," and your personal disinterest in the story is irrelevant (as is my interest). Again, it isn't our place to decide whether the international media coverage and public fascination are warranted. —David Levy 07:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you are. You are also trying to create interest in an event that never happened. You may be fascinated by a stray balloon and a 911 call, but intelligent people believe such stories are nothing more than trivia.--Drknkn (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. I'm still waiting for you to cite the "lie" that our article is "helping perpetuate." (As I said, you're acting as though it currently states that the boy was carried away in the balloon.)
2. When an incident captivates millions of people around the world, the revelation that it was based on an error or a deliberate hoax doesn't cause it to evaporate. In fact, speculation regarding the latter possibility has only fueled further attention.
3. No, we don't seek to create interest in anything. We're responding to interest that already exists (which you disapprove of and wish to suppress, apparently on the basis that people whose interests differ from yours are not "intelligent"). Your incivility is not appreciated. —David Levy 08:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lol. Your reasoning means that there is A LOT of deleting to do; perhaps hundreds of thousands of entries. Keep the article. 74.241.105.140 (talk) 06:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC) .[reply]
And what does "encyclopedic" mean? See WP:UNENCYC: refer to policies and guidelines or at least elaborate. --Cyclopia - talk 00:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is there is an article about Larry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Walters Walters then this story should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicweast (talk • contribs) 13:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The panel discussions about how this managed to become a worldwide story are already going on. i.e. it's already become a story about journalism. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has already become a story about how to do journalism badly and may well end up as a lesson for journalism school entitled Don't get sucked into doing something dumb like reporting on this. If the article is retained it needs to have a far different focus on how this highlighted the weaknesses in how news is made and reported. - Ahunt (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Likely it will have a different focus in the future. But it's best to allow the article an early start, while the initial sources are still freely available online. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because mainstream media is never a reliable source. We really need more blogs and politicial advocacy organizations to weigh in on this. /sarcasm. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone said the MSM is never a reliable source? Someone said we need more blogs? I only assert that you should be ashamed for having an article that is sourced solely by the main stream media. You may wish to look into the reason why this project has policies about points-of-view. Hint: accurate or not, the MSM is rarely a neutral source. mdf (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the article does comply with all policies, it's the folks who don't want articles about current events that are saying IDONTLIKEIT. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just being "in the news" is not sufficient critiera for a Wikipedia article. Stop treating the project like a tabloid. Tarc (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a little beyond just "being in the news". Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this is more than "in the news", then a source should be available that is not directly tied to the news or its affiliates. Where is it? mdf (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The news" isn't a single entity. Every news organization has its own biases, but I highly doubt the Wall Street Journal, the Christian Science Monitor, NPR, and the New York Times have the same points of view. It's a current event, and for the next few days, the sources are going to exclusively be news media. WP's allowed to cover current events, especially when theyre worldwide front-page stories. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) The MSM is actively competing for audience, and this slants all their points of view. In essence, outliers and exceptions get top-billing. Freaks of nature. Rare, crazy, events of limited value beyond their ability to create an audience. Get it? Furthermore, I know you are allowed to make complete fools of yourselves. I have said that already. The question you should be asking yourselves is why should we slavishly follow the media, anyways? Wikipedia is not in the same business, nor should it be! If the story is truly notable then future sources -- independent of the news media -- will appear and this article can be resurrected at that time. mdf (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's notable and reliably sourced. That's all what we need to know for inclusion. If you have your own ideas on the "business" of WP, please bring them to the village pump, or even to Jimbo Wales, but until policies change and explicitly exclude these pages, your arguments are based only on your very personal POV. --Cyclopia - talk 14:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse procedural close: xeno has a wise suggestion.--Milowent (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I "fourth" it, and have changed my position from delete to procedural close. It's become a much bigger deal than it was originally. If it turns out to be a hoax it could be highly notable.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's notable because the kid wasn't in the balloon and the media fell all over it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's also unimportant. • Anakin (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the huge number of people are puzzled about how Wikipedia has an article on a "balloon incident" in which no lives were lost or even in danger at any point? A huge number of people does not guarantee notability no more than only a small number of users being able to air their views guarantees non-notability. --candle•wicke 16:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why the tabloid journalism response kicked in was because the event was not routine. Now we have the spectacle of the media critisizing itself, and this is being used to bootstrap this event into notability. Ye gods, if someone pisses on the floor in a restaurant, do we give the miscreant time to convene panels and discuss the matter, or do we summarily eject the guy and move on? In any case, this is hardly the basis of true notability. Otherwise, you'd be simply, and brainlessly, cut-n-pasting the front page of the New York Times into the encyclopedia on a daily basis. Basically, the MSM and everyone else was probably hoaxed, and the result was your typical media clusterfuck. Does this imply Wikipedia must follow along? Or should we be allowed to use our collective heads? mdf (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, declining to cover something simply because we don't think the media should have covered it is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV Binarybits (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do not decline to cover simply because you think the media should not have covered it ... you decline to cover it because they did, and more importantly, the manner in which they did. You even noted WP policy about "tabloid journalism": what you are seeing on CNN and elsewhere is tabloid journalism. An audience for audience sake. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia is not in the same business. Nor should it be. mdf (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think my point stands: what you're saying is that we should prefer your POV to what the reliable sources actually tell us. You don't like that CNN covered it extensively, but they did, and they're not a tabloid. So did the New York Times and the Washington Post--also not tabloids. This is strong evidence of notability, and we can't ignore it simply based on personal opinion. Binarybits (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CNN is not a tabloid ... however, they were acting like one yesterday. As was the rest of them. This happens every now and then. The term of art is "slow news day". mdf (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. I (and a number of other editors) don't agree. Which is why we look to reliable sources to settle notability disputes. Binarybits (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability flows from reliability? mdf (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the underpinnings of WP:NOTNEWS is WP:NOTABILITY. There is a see also link to the Notability guideline for a reason. For this case, please take a look at WP:GNG, the general notability guideline. Note that fifth bullet point: "Presumed" means that substantive 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 standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. We don't have articles on Britney Spears photographed without panties because (despite the endless reportage—and I use the term loosely) it is not encyclopedic. In fact, not only is there no standalone article, it's not even mentioned in the article on her. Some things don't merit an encyclopedia article, even in Wikipedia. Horologium (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Under which criteria? You're practically making the case for legalizing POV into Wikipedia, because you're talking of arbitrary boundaries devoid of objective meaning. This is very akin to "I don't like it". I am worried. Also: WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. --Cyclopia - talk 14:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was the Britney Spears incident covered by non-tabloid news sources? If there had been hours of coverage on CNN, then I'd say there was a strong argument for including it. If it only appears on gossip blogs and super market tabloids, then it's not on the same category as this story which was covered by virtually every mainstream news outlet. Binarybits (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Google search string "Britney Spears" without panties site:cnn.com returned 251 hits on CNN's site[1], and a search of the same string in the New York Times archive pulled up 123 articles [2]. I didn't look elsewhere, but that seems to me to be more than trivial coverage by non-tabloid sources. Horologium (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to also add, as stupid as the entire incident was, it had a broad affect and cost: an entire airport was shutdown, flight paths rerouted, military search was deployed with intent for night search, etc. Considering the state of the economy and local budgets, it's a pretty big issue how much was spent on this search. It reaks of missing white woman syndrome. Just because you personally don't a see the value in the incident, doesn't negate that there was a broad affect beyond a silly child and eccentric parents. --75.34.181.114 (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "some guy getting canonized by the pope" was Father Damien whose article previously existed and who appears to already have been a notable figure internationally. It wouldn't make sense to delete someone with obvious prior notability just because there has been a new addition to their biography. --candle•wicke 16:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That section you are referring to is the link to Wikinews, which has been cited repeatedly as the appropriate forum for this topic. There is, in fact, an article already on Wikinews. n:6-year-old boy in Colorado found alive, unhurt after runaway balloon allegedly carried him away We don't need an article in Wikipedia as well. Horologium (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow! I didn't know a section with a link where the URL contains wikipedia.org like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2009_Lahore_attacks is in Wikinews. My bad. I thought Wikinews used Wikinews.org instead of Wikipedia.org thanks for the correction and looking at the links I posted! Very thorough. --75.34.181.114 (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one cares about "wikinews". When I hear people talk about news, they mention CNN.com. When they go looking for facts, they mention wikipedia. I have never, ever heard anyone mention "wikinews". →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 14:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So even though an airport was shut down, flights rerouted, a military search crew deployed across 9 counties covered in wilderness, then it was "a big fat nothing". Pardon me, but I find that laughable. Whether the kid was missing, located, dashed against rocks, or the entire incident was a hoax doesn't change the resources used and national attention given. It had an impact, and I bet anyone trying to get out of the Denver airport would strongly disagree with your sentiment about it being a "big fat nothing". --75.34.181.114 (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletionists are all too quick to push the delete button, as if wikipedia were going to press or something. This story continues to evolve, and has the potential to become another story like the "runaway bride" hoax. The kid blew the parents' cover when he said it was "for the show". Anyone here who states flatly that the story will last, or won't last, can't possibly know for sure. We can always delete it later. People come to wikipedia for information. Let's not let the deletionists allow wikipedia to look out of touch. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 14:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can always delete it now and restore it later when independent sources arise. mdf (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(response to Bugs) You know, not everything is deletionist vs. inclusionist, and a desire to see the event covered in the proper forum doesn't make me a deletionist. What alarms me is the freaky response to saving this article. Wikinews (whatever your opinion of it) exists for a reason, and this is a perfect example. Wikipedia is not a compendium of everything, nor does it claim to be so. Horologium (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was not a fair comment, as I've argued strenuously for inclusion of many articles. This is a news story, pure and simple. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting it before it has even played out, based on pure crystal-ball arguments, makes no sense. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 17:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request for details This event was newsworthy - how ? This event was newsworthy, noteworthy.. - How ? There are many, many articles on Wikipedia about long-forgotten events and people - Provide Examples. 80.193.130.5 (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, this thing was on every major network for two hours. This is inherently newsworthy and noteworthy. That's not even debatable. --Delta1989 (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, I would assign this as a STRONG KEEP. Readers and researchers might have cause in the future to reference this event. 75.36.203.232 (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might? --candle•wicke 15:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I love the POV here. "Let's not cover this because we disagree with the media's decision to cover it." Binarybits (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is your POV any better? "Let's cover this because we are brainless automatons, slaves to holy Wikipedia policy that say we must join the media clusterfuck, whereever it may lead us." Ok, that may not be entirely fair representation of your position, but heck, you are an editor here: why can you not exercise some discretion? Can the same be said of CNN's editors, yesterday? From the point of view of their bottom line -- profit -- their editors clearly made the right decision. But what is Wikipedia's bottom line? Is it making money on net audience? Or does it have "higher goals", so to speak? If it does, is it wise to simply abdicate all editorial discretion to the editors in the mainstream media, even in times when said media is clearly flying off the rails? If so, would it completely honest to refer to such a position as a "neutral" point of view? mdf (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I was referring the the amount of talk concerning this deletion issue, Binarybits. Chill out a tad, k? --TorsodogTalk 17:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't say I know them but maybe they aren't actually notable and nobody has nominated them for deletion yet? --candle•wicke 17:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll save you the explanation of each individual's viral video, but to answer your question about nominations for deletion for each article, I found one for Crocker (here) and Brolsma (here) where the result for both were an overwhelming keep, aside from the person who proposed its deletion. Tampabay721 (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a convincing argument for keeping. Maybe the other articles need to be deleted as well, if they are as nonnotable as this one. Edison (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dammit, there's a policy on everything. I'm sure the next thing I'll see is WP:THERESNOTAPOLICYONEVERYTHING. Tampabay721 (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to assess this as an unlikely outcome; media wipeouts like this are an aperiodic occurence. Almost expected now. Furthermore, far nastier cases are merely footnotes in the chapters on media ethics in textbooks. Take, as one example, the photograph of a kid killed in the Mt. St. Helens eruption: a San Jose Mercury photographer took a photograph of his body, stiffened in full rigor mortis, face up in the back of a pickup truck ... and the media ran with it. Well, you can imagine the shock, the horror and dismay. I recall that the family actually learned of the death via the photograph in the newspaper. A full-on clucking session! Now, it's a few words in a paragraph (with image, of course!) in photojournalism references. Not even worthy of a Wikipedia article on its own. As is the current SNAFU. mdf (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "It will remain notable as a cultural moment" sounds like crystal ball gazing and is not a valid keep argument. Edison (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As are all the "it won't amount to anything" arguments. Until the story plays out, no one here knows what it's going to amount to. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 17:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The North Hollywood Shootout article has many non-mainstream, non-real-time news media sources. Whether this event inspires a movie, well, we can just wait and see, right? mdf (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Someone might make a movie about it" sounds like crystal ball gazing and is not a valid keep argument. Edison (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"It won't amount to anything" is crystal ball gazing, and is not a valid delete argument. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 17:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
as unfortunate as it sounds, child abuse happens every day, whereas someone claiming their child flew miles in a home made helium balloon is rather a unique situation--UltraMagnusspeak 18:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Section Break 2[edit]

Um, WP:BLP1E says we don't have a separate article on a person who is notable for only one event. It doesn't say we don't cover the event at all. Binarybits (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, I should have cited the BLP policy as a whole, which applies to all articles that contain information about living persons. The presumption in favor of privacy means that we probably shouldn't have biographical information about the kid or family, which means that the article would be pretty sparse. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This does not assert notability - the "world media" having a brain snap is not a reliable basis on which to decide notability under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Orderinchaos 19:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I'm going to start hashing something out in my userspace. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Many of "strong deletes" labour under the mistaken assumption that events like this aren't exactly the kind of thing the human race has found fascinating for thousands of years. Hoaxes, odd one time events, they have always had place in the history books of mankind and on wikipedia. E.g., The Balloon-Hoax (1844), Great Stock Exchange Fraud of 1814 (Feb. 21, 1814), Great Moon Hoax (August 1835), Mary Toft (1726). Claiming this is "unencyclopedic" is simply denying the nature of humankind and romanticizing the past. yet, we are today as we have ever been.--Milowent (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I eagerly await the obligatory WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS response from someone.--Milowent (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand this argument. If I understand correctly, by that theory one could argue that we should have an article on every single joke, since people have found them interesting for thousands of years? –Juliancolton | Talk 21:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously, as with the North Hollywood Shootout, the events you note are backed up by non-mainstream media sources as well. Not only that, but, over a century or more later, these other sources are still making note of them. Is there a better working definition of "notable"? Can the same be said of an event that took place yesterday? Furthermore, I must once again note that "odd one time events" are the bread and butter of the media. It is how they make the money they do. What is the bread and butter of Wikipedia? mdf (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As good Wikipedia, I will oposse my !vote by citing a bunch of wikipedia policy without giving my rationale. WP:NOT NEWS, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But my favorite one, WP:FUCK. Here, I oppose myself using wikipedia jargon and not logic. --Jmundo (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: you think that CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC are reliable sources?? They're televised tabloids who routinely report non-notable events, and they're all extremely biased. They're no more reliable than The Enquirer. But you seem to think they're gospel.--Drknkn (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a straw man. I don't hold any of those organizations in particularly high esteem, and if they were the only available sources, I would support the article's deletion. But that isn't the case; the story is being reported by reputable news-gathering organizations around the world. —David Levy 06:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What story? Nothing ever happened. The media claimed that a boy was stranded in a balloon, then it turned out that he wasn't. But the entry stayed here. The news media calls their corrections "updates" but they're just corrections, because the whole "story" is a lie that we're perpetuating here. We're worse than CNN. We're using mis-prints and lies as sources.--Drknkn (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you seriously not understand that the controversy surrounding the false claim is widely regarded as noteworthy in and of itself?
What "lies" are we propagating? You're acting as though our article currently states that the boy was carried away in the balloon. —David Levy 07:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't understand why a fake 911 call and a stray balloon could be a national controversy. Fake 911 calls happen all the time. It's your fault that we're talking about this, by the way -- not the family's. That's the only thing that I find noteworthy here. You are now a part of the 24-hour media machine. The article makes it sound like it's a hoax that one family perpetuated, but it's really a hoax that you and the media are perpetuating right now. You're also helping cover the media's back by justifying their coverage of the issue.--Drknkn (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you've made your agenda abundantly clear. Thank you. —David Levy 07:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could you link to the correct listing. Because the other listing is also closed.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC) You know on second look this listing does not look like a closed listing.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me write for you how it should read. Based on all the actual information we have. The Heene's are a family with some odd belief's. They are really interested in science. On October 15th they thought their son flew away in an experimental balloon. He was found hiding. Some think this may have been a hoax, but law enforcement has made statements that they don't think it was a hoax. An investigation is ongoing.
Those are all of the facts. This article is at most worth a stub. Frankly this should not even be that. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to an article about the family. They are definitely notable. The information is in my opinion not notable but the kid has definitely become a media sensation. Users will come here looking for information regarding the incident and the family. I would have suggested to delete as compared to the incident Lufthansa Flight 288 which was in my opinion much more notable and yet it was not allowed to have its own article, however i believe the addition of information is more valuable than the deletion.Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All current sources in this article are clearly biased by forces inherent in the MSM information collection, "amplification" and distribution processes, noted variously above. Deleting the thing now, and then, in a few months or years when non-news sources are available, recreating it seems the most sensible approach. mdf (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you advocate applying the above to all events (e.g. an earthquake or an assassination attempt)? If not, through what criteria have you determined that this particular news coverage is to be ignored? —David Levy 01:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the media coverage turns from "routine" to a nasty, self-replicating, positive feedback, runaway tabloid process that we observed the other day, absolutely! Indeed, I would have to ask on what basis you can possibly argue "notability" in a situation like that: when a marginal event is amplified in "importance" far beyond any rational purpose (outside the tight confines of profit for the media itself), to use "normal" notability criteria as defined at this project is to reject the idea the MSM suffered a major problem the other day. Well, guess what, even elements of that media suggest there was a problem. Basically, you can't have it both ways. It behooves one, then, to adaptively set aside such policies here, and do as I suggest: delete now, due to unknown notability, and resurrect when sources outside the bubble appear. mdf (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. So...if you happen to disagree with the manner in which the mainstream media handle coverage of an earthquake or an assassination attempt, you think that we should exert punishment by deleting our article about said event? Did I read your response correctly?
2. Were there problems with the media coverage? Yes. Is that a reason to ignore it? Absolutely not. It's a related issue warranting coverage in an encyclopedia article about the overall subject.
3. You're applying your personal viewpoint to deem the event "marginal" and declare that it therefore should be suppressed. That's not why we're here. Part of our responsibility in writing a dynamic encyclopedia is to document events that humankind regards as significant, not to overrule humanity because we think that we know what's best. To do so is to throw the concept of NPOV out the window.
4. I don't understand why people are comparing this event with tabloid stories the likes of "Britney Spears photographed without panties" (which, by the way, could be covered as a controversy in the Britney Spears article if it's sufficiently prominent and well-sourced). When jetliners are diverted, an international airport is shut down, military helicopters are deployed, millions of people around the world are captivated, and a scandal erupts on top of that, I don't see how notability can be called into question. It's reasonable to assert that those things shouldn't have occurred, but they did. We don't omit documentation of events on the basis that we dislike them and believe that the world is wrong to care about them, and thank goodness for that. —David Levy 16:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might? --candle•wicke 03:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recentism is no basis for a decision regarding article deletion - if anything, it is an argument to keep until notability or non-notability becomes clearer.--Jaymax (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sez you. Nevertheless to forestall the inevitable shitstorm I also add WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS to ensure my delete !vote passes muster in Jaymax's ivory tower. Crafty (talk) 03:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion. It's normal to express disagreement with other users' rationales, and Jaymax did so in a polite manner. Your rude response is entirely uncalled-for.
I've already explained why WP:BLP1E is inapplicable. That must be one of the most frequently misinterpreted pieces of policy/guideline text in Wikipedia, as it constantly seems to be cited in incorrect contexts in deletion debates.
WP:NOTNEWS isn't applicable either, unless one regards the event in question as "routine" (which it clearly wasn't). The question is whether it's notable, and we can't look to WP:NOTNEWS to determine that. —David Levy 03:57/04:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your assertion that my response was rude. Further, I do not accept your interpretation of the policies/guidelines in this case. I have rendered my !vote. On this issue I am not for turning. Crafty (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. You don't think that your "Jaymax's ivory tower" remark was the least bit rude?
2. Please explain why you believe those policies to be applicable. How does a rule against creating an article about a non-notable player in an event (intended to protect against unwanted publicity) apply to an article about an event itself (whose participants seek publicity)? How does a rule against creating articles for routine news events apply to this extraordinary occurrence? —David Levy 04:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. I don't know what "on this issue I am not for turning" means. That you cannot be persuaded to alter your opinion? —David Levy 04:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I have rendered my !vote and I do not feel in anyway compelled to justify myself further. To you or anyone else. Crafty (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but "because I said so, and I refuse to explain why" (scare quotes) isn't a terribly strong argument. —David Levy 06:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Please explain how this event fails WP:N. Has it not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject?
2. WP:BLP1E tells us that we should not create articles about otherwise non-notable persons involved in notable events. It does not pertain to the creation of articles about the events themselves (excepting biographies of living persons disguised as event articles). And again, BLP 1E's purpose is to protect low-profile persons from unwanted publicity. The persons involved in this event are intentionally high-profile and seek publicity.
Under your apparent interpretation of BLP 1E, we could not have any articles about non-recurring events until after the deaths of every otherwise non-notable person involved.
3. Again, WP:NOT#NEWS tells us not to create articles about "routine" occurrences. You state above that the event in question is not unusual, and I can't begin to understand that viewpoint. I don't recall ever hearing or reading of a similar occurrence in my life. Do you?
4. On what do you base your assertion that this is a "flash in the pan story of the day that will be forgotten by Monday"? Your personal lack of interest? —David Levy 05:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why you feel the need to badger almost every delete commentator here? This is a routine occurence. Children do stupid things all the time. They get lost all the time. They hide from their parents when they have misbehaved all the time. The media blows crap out of proportion all the time. It is not notable, it fails WP:BLP - these are low-profile nobodies who will continue to be so next week. They are not high-profile. And I base my assertion on common sense and the norm in the news. Watch it every day, and yeah, 99% of the stories are forgotten within a week and never mentioned again. This is a one-time, unnotable news event that came on a boring news day. I'm not interested in a ton of topics on Wikipedia, but they are actually notable versus this which is not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. I'm sorry that you view my attempts to engage in good-faith discussion as "badgering."
2. Even before this incident, the family appeared on an internationally televised television program. Over the past couple of days, they've granted interviews to numerous others. Are you suggesting that they seek to maintain a low profile?
3. Your vague description of this story omits everything that makes it exceptional. But you needn't agree with that assessment, as it isn't up to us to determine. Like it or not, the general public and media around the world are treating this as an extraordinary saga. We don't get to decide that they're wrong. —David Levy 06:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard a news story about a stay balloon floating around, no. Does that mean a stray balloon has never floated around? Probably not. It probably has more to do with my sources for news (The New York Times, The Newshour, NPR, etc.) It also has to do with the fact that stories such as this wren't considered notable enough even for CNN -- until now.--Drknkn (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you honestly believe that this is a "story about a stray balloon floating around," I'm not sure that I can help you. —David Levy 07:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, your definition of "help" is placing lies and trivia in Wikipedia? No, thanks. I don't need any help in that area.--Drknkn (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, in this instance, my definition of "help" would entail getting you to understand that "a stray balloon floating around" is not the crux of this story. Jetliners were diverted, military helicopters were deployed, and millions of people around the world were captivated, and you choose to focus on "a stray balloon floating around." There are suspicions that all of this stemmed from a hoax intended to generate publicity for a proposed reality TV series, and you inexplicably believe that this negates the story.
And again, I ask you to cite the "lies" that our article is propagating. —David Levy 08:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. The "crux of the story" must be that there is no story, because nothing happened? You guys accidentally created an article about something that never happened. Imagine if Wikipedia had an article about everything that wasn't true. Then, it'd be really big! If I were to boil the content of the entry down into an equation it'd be 1 - 1 = 0.--Drknkn (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Something happening that differs from what initially is believed to have happened ≠ nothing happening. I just mentioned significant stuff that happened, and you've ignored that.
As I noted, there is rampant suspicion that the boy's parents perpetrated a hoax (and you've indicated that you believe this to be so). Are you suggesting that a hoax (including one that captivates millions of people around the world) cannot be notable? Are you suggesting that a widely held belief instantly becomes non-notable when it turns out to be false?
We began with a gripping story of a boy purportedly set adrift in a helium balloon, and now it's evolved into a massive public backlash (with allegations that resources were wasted and lives were needlessly placed at risk for the sake of a publicity stunt). 1 + 1 = 2.
Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to cite the article's "lies." —David Levy 09:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? That would be a complete violation of WP:NPOV. If an article is noteworthy, which this is, we should not deny it just because our personal opinion is that the participants in the event did it for attention and so we should deny them such attention. That is counter to the purpose of the encyclopedia. WP:DENY is meant for vandals that are not noteworthy. Infact, you'll find several areas on Wikipedia that talks about the more noteworthy vandals. A perfect example is at the end of WP:DENY, you'll see a link for "Pelican shit". Please try to remain nuetral.--TParis00ap (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the applicability of those texts has been explicitly contested, it would be helpful if you would elaborate (by explaining how you interpret them as directly relevant). —David Levy 08:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see the contradiction? You refer to "global hype," and then you label this a "seemingly minor news event." How are you gauging it as such? Via your subjective opinion that it's no big deal and shouldn't be receiving massive amounts of "global" media coverage? Again, it isn't our place to determine that. Our encyclopedia is intended to reflect reality, not to shape reality to suit our preferences. (And if the story of the child that was run over by a train were to generate this level of attention, it should be the subject of a Wikipedia article too.)
Also keep in mind that we're discussing an ordeal that included the diversion of jetliners, the shutdown of an international airport, the deployment of military helicopters, and the captivation of millions of people around the world (followed by allegations that all of this stemmed from a hoax intended to generate publicity for a proposed reality TV program). How is that not notable? And how is it "routine" (the type of news addressed via WP:NOTNEWS)? —David Levy 12:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'It isn't our place to determine that.' Well, this is a somewhat facetious reply, but it should be! I think we ought to hold ourselves to higher standards than the mainstream media. Just because they think some flash-in-the-pan story is notable, doesn't mean we should. In any case, I think it's pretty clear this is going to be closed as no consensus, so you don't need to keep badgering the Delete !voters - but I hope it provokes a discussion on whether we should reassess our current criteria for notability. This may in fact pass our inclusion policies, but I'm not convinced it belongs here all the same. Robofish (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is noting facetious about your response: you are absolutely correct. Wikipedia's standards should, at a bare minimum, exceed those in the mainstream media. That the current political structure at Wikipedia says otherwise is the travesty, a shocking embaressment. That this debate will almost certainly result in a "no consensus" (aka "I'm afraid of making a decision") or "keep" (aka "I stick my fingers in my ears, la la la") should not disuade anyone from expressing their disgusted outrage that a project that is dedicated to the collection and dissemination of knowledge isn't, in the end, much more than a mouthpiece for whatever nonsense (or not!) comes out of CNN. Shame! mdf (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm proud of the fact that Wikipedia is designed to disseminate information without regard to personal bias. In my view, if the Wikipedia community were to decide to counter perceived bias with further bias (as Robofish and you advocate), that would be a "travesty" and a "shocking embarrassment." —David Levy 16:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. We do hold ourselves to a higher standard than that of the mainstream media. We do so by striving to not allow our personal biases to dictate our content. You advocate countering perceived bias with further bias.
Arbitrarily deeming this "some flash-in-the-pan story" is no more defensible than elevating its importance (as you believe has occurred within the mainstream media) is. That's inherently subjective and non-NPOV, which is why we don't even attempt to decide. Indeed, we hold ourselves to a higher standard by simply recognizing that millions of people around the world regard this event as highly noteworthy. We needn't even consider whether they're "right" or "wrong" to feel this way. We base our encyclopedia upon what is, not what we want to be. That's a very good thing.
2. Expressing disagreement ≠ "badgering." This is a discussion, not a ballot. —David Levy 16:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, you're right - I've been spending too much time at RFA. I'll withdraw that part of my comment above. Robofish (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I sincerely appreciate it. —David Levy 00:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborate. How does this subject fail WP:NOTNEWS? Was the incident "routine"? —David Levy 12:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The event was not routine. Indeed, that it appeared at all in the media means it must have been a massive outlier, therefore an excellent subject for their coverage. This is a a well known process. However, the coverage quickly degenerated into classic tabloid journalism, which the NOTNEWS stuff mentions. Shall we fill the database with ever manner of titilating reportage, celebrity gossip, and whatever else an MSM editor feels will fetch a few more buyers from a supermarket checkout? Once CNN or the NYT attain the coveted blank check at Wikipedia's "reliable source" policy, does this mean everything they spew forth is subject to inclusion, without further consideration? Or can we just exercise editorial discretion, recognize Wikipedia is not, should not, be in the same business? It operates on no deadlines, and even better, on a far, far, longer timeline. mdf (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Whether the mainstream media's coverage of the event was appropriate is not for us to decide. (However, outside commentary of said coverage by notable sources certainly is appropriate for inclusion in our article.)
2. Are you seriously comparing this story with "celebrity gossip"? Again, jetliners were diverted, an international airport was shut down, military helicopters were deployed, and millions of people around the world were (and still are) captivated. Even the President of the United States found himself overshadowed, for crying out loud. We can bemoan that fact ad infinitum, but we can't change it and mustn't pretend otherwise. —David Levy 16:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Is someone saying we need to decide now? Please recall my suggestion: delete now, await non-bubble source for resurrection to be considered.
2. Whether the target is being chased down the street, or through a tunnel at high speeds, or in the air with helicopters, papparazi are papparazi. What you saw on CNN and elsewhere was tabloid journalism. Basically, a WP:UNDUE violation at the source. What do you do? (See my suggestion, above). mdf (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that it's inappropriate for us to decide at any point. I'm also saying that this event clearly meets our notability and verifiability requirements. You're saying "but it shouldn't, and we must correct this injustice!" (scare quotes), and I'm saying that it isn't remotely within Wikipedia's mission to base its editorial content on such social activism. If the community doesn't continue striving to maintain a neutral point of view, Wikipedia will become another side of the Conservapedia coin. —David Levy 23:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine then. Delete the article, and let a non bubble source allow its resurrection. "We" don't decide anything; someone else does. Right now, your appeals to the sources you know are flawed do not make an honest, let alone firm, foundation for an argument along the lines you are proposing. mdf (talk) 23:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be conflating the issues of notability and verifiability, as well as projecting your apparent distrust of all mainstream news-gathering organizations onto me.
The quality and quantity of available sources far exceed Wikipedia's verifiability standards. There certainly are members of the mainstream media that I don't care for, but we have countless reliable sources from around the world.
However, the above discussion pertains to notability (specifically, the belief that the mainstream media were wrong to supply prominent coverage of the event in question, so Wikipedia should compensate by ignoring any resultant notoriety). Neither formally deeming the media coverage inappropriate nor acting on this determination by seeking to counter the perceived bias with further bias is consistent with Wikipedia's core principles. —David Levy 00:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a violation of WP:NPOV. Contributors need to apply WP:DGAF about the events and focus on whether it was an unusual event that has significant independant coverage, which it does. This is clearly notable as the well sources article is evident of. Please do not allow personal opinion of the family's intentions to affect your opinion on the noteworthyness of the article.--TParis00ap (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a WP:NPOV violation, it was what the news reported as the truth on the day after the Wolf Blitzer interview. They replayed the boys comment on how he was instructed to "do it for the show". This is verifiable, citations available.--Windowasher (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is a WP:NPOV violation is your opinion that the family's intentions effects it's noteworthiness.--TParis00ap (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A family filling a false missing child report for publicity is not a noteworthy article.--Windowasher (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is simplifying the events. There are several things noteworthy, 1) The media hiccup surrounding this events, 2) The rescue operations and closure of Denver airport, 3) The investigation into whether this was a hoax, 4) The unusual interviews with the family. This garnered world-wide attention as evident by the sources from Austrailia and the UK and there is even an article on the Česky version of Wikipedia. The key reason for the delete votes are that Wikipedia editors feel they should deny the family recognition that they seek, which you obviously agree with.--TParis00ap (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm...when was it officially confirmed to be a hoax? —David Levy 16:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this Wikipedia article a hoax? If story itself was a hoax, why is this a relevant point in arguing to delete the article? Shall we also delete posts on other alleged hoaxes like (1) George Bush's weapons of mass destruction, (2) Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth", (3) Madoff's ponzi scheme, etc. The same reason we should not delete articles on those hoaxes is this reason why we shouldn't delete this post (among other reasons). 129.81.40.250 (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC) .[reply]
David Levy - The police seem to think it was a hoax other news stories point to it being a publicity stunt. 129.81.40.250 I was not saying the article itslef was a hoax, but the event was. I'm not saying delete because it was a hoax, I'm saying delete because of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Notability, the article should indicate that it was a hoax. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, "1E" = "one event." BLP 1E advises us against creating biographical articles about low-profile persons who happened to become involved in notable events. (In other words, it has absolutely nothing to do with this article.) —David Levy 17:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so that's what it's supposed to mean. With the hoax and all of the police investigation and public scrutiny of what happened, this saga is not yet over so we may see continuing coverage in the media... wait, we are supposed not to follow the media, in this case... –Howard the Duck 17:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Howard the Duck, thank you for trying to clear up my confusion. However, I am still confused. I concede that 300 years from now someone in Siberia might not care about this article, etc. Yet, I still don't understand why such arguments support deletion. I do not understand why keeping the article is somehow problematic, as if we are closely approaching a maximum space limitation. 129.81.40.250 (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC) .[reply]
  • I guess it about the term "encyclopedic", what that means, if this article is encyclopedic, and if it really matters here in Wikipedia. –Howard the Duck 18:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) People support delete because this is a news event, and I was among them. However, it is becoming a big deal worthy of an article. Let's close it and revisit the situation in a few weeks.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how an incident in which jetliners are diverted, an international airport is shut down, military helicopters are deployed, millions of people around the world are captivated, the President of the United States is knocked out of the top headlines, and a scandal erupts on top of that has "no indications of any notability" and is the type of "routine" event addressed via WP:NOTNEWS. Please also explain how our article "promotes" anything. —David Levy 18:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had never heard of the hoax before i read this article. The article clearly promotes the publicity stunt of a mentally unstable couple from Colorado who are using their children to seek attention. Urban XII (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how our article promotes the publicity stunt (assuming that it is such). Are you suggesting that they come across in a flattering light? —David Levy 19:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To quote two small parts from WP:Recentism as folk are repeatidly referring to that ESSAY, but it does not appear to hold as a reason to delete:
1) "Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion"
2) "Benefits of recentist articles: one of Wikipedia's strengths that it is able to collate and sift through vast amounts of reporting on current events, producing encyclopedia-quality articles in real time about ongoing events or developing stories" --Jaymax (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deep problems with "recentism" is that the encyclopedia is polluted with crap until the situation stabilizes. It was an interesting experience a few years ago watching, in real time, cited news sources in 'developing' articles change (with no indication!) to the point the encyclopedia was spreading falsehoods (according to the sacred sources). This leads to a number of thorny issues, premiere among them being simple verifiability, as well as source reliability. To wit: the article may have been true in the past, but was no longer verifiable now. So is the article wrong, or was the source wrong? If the source was wrong then, this goes directly to the unreliable nature of the source.
The easy solution to all of this is to reject any article solely sourced to the mainstream media. This has a number of beneficial features: reducing article churn, enhanced verifiability (if not outright truth as well) and reliability, greatly reduces the inherent un-due weight bias in the media (aka "tabloid journalism"), which leads to a far better estimator for long-term "notability". The only downside I can see is that articles on media magnified hoaxes and such will have to wait a few months before they can be created. But I am unaware of any deadlines in this project. mdf (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you're proposing is a fairly fundamental change to WP:V, one of the three core content-policies. In good faith, I don't agree with your analysis that all the things you list as 'benefits' actually hold up as such. eg: Article churn is not a 'bad thing' if the nett consequence is the emergence of good artcles which otherwise would not exist, and which properly meet the inclusion criteria.--Jaymax (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm proposing is that no article should exist if it is solely sourced to the mainstream media. I fail to understand how this is a "fundamental change" to any policy at all. Actually, it looks like it is in complete accordance with WP:V. The same principle can be said for almost any other kind of source too. For example, should an article be permitted to be solely sourced to a single book? mdf (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 3[edit]

Please see my above reply to Urban XII for a list of some of the elements that you've omitted.
I'm amazed by the number of editors basing their position on the amount of attention that they believe the story should have received. —David Levy 18:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More like: Parents tell kid to hide in the attic, and pretend he is in a balloon, for the purpose of seeking media attention. We should not help them. This is an encyclopedia. Urban XII (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that summary and remain baffled as to how our article "help[s] them." Clearly, they aren't receiving anything close to the type of media attention that they desire, and our article reflects this.
Should we delete all articles pertaining to behavior that we dislike? —David Levy 19:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it's more like: Disgruntled misled Wikipedia editors assist unfit parents who locked their child in the attic to abuse the missing child reporting system for publicity.--Windowasher (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborate. How are Wikipedia editors assisting Mr. and Mrs. Heene? Are you suggesting that our article somehow aids their cause? —David Levy 19:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As their objective seems to be getting as much attention as possible, I think it does. Urban XII (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is in response to my opinion, I'd like to say that the idea we should pass judgement on the event as a hoax is ridiculous and clearly not in line with NPOV. I'm simply saying that this is a one-off event that is newsworthy but not of lasting notability. Steven Walling 19:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is a one-off event, but that's irrelevant (unless you're suggesting that non-recurring events are inherently non-notable). Regarding "lasting notability," please see Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary. —David Levy 19:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you not agree that this attention is highly contrary to the type that they seek? Current media coverage is overwhelmingly critical of the couple, and our article reflects this. —David Levy 19:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mentally unstable persons do not necessarily reason in a rational way, there are many examples of people obsessed with getting any attention. For all we know, they may consider their publicity stunt a great success. Urban XII (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And for all we know, Jonathan Winters might react to seeing his name in an online encyclopedia by kicking defenseless puppies. Just to be on the safe side, we'd better shut down the site, eh? —David Levy 00:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"More like: Parents tell kid to hide in the attic..."[citation needed] :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giving them an eternity of fame is not what Wikipedia is here for.--98.21.86.96 (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My sentiments exactly. Urban XII (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do I need to invoke Godwin's law for an analogy that would get my point across? I've been trying very hard not to. —David Levy 19:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Wikipedia is here to document the reality of the situation. At this point, "infamy" is a better description of what the Heenes have achieved. I remain baffled by the suggestion that our article benefits them in any way. —David Levy 19:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the deletionist argument here is essentially that Wikipedia should not document reality as it is, but rather reality as it should be: this family just doesn't deserve so much attention, so we should refuse to give them any attention here on Wikipedia, no matter what the rest of the world is doing. Everyking (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that seems to accurately describe the argument put forth by many users. And I can at least understand (but strongly disagree with) the view that the incident itself should be ignored because of its ridiculousness. What I can't understand is the assertion that our article somehow generates beneficial publicity for the Heenes. —David Levy 20:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t be naïve, remember Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth? You don’t have to be liked to be in demand. The reality shows will be waiting in line to get this family on again.--Windowasher (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that very much. There is a strong public perception that at the very least, the parents have sought to exploit their children for personal gain via the reality television genre (and most people polled have expressed the belief that the balloon incident was a hoax perpetrated for this purpose). People don't merely dislike Mr. and Mrs. Heene (or love to hate them, as they did with Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth); they resent their association with reality television and are appalled by the idea of them monetarily benefiting from this ordeal. The genre in general has taken a black eye (nothing new, but something to address), and any reality show producer in his/her right mind will put as much distance between his/her program and the Heenes as possible. The same applies to book publishers and anyone else in a position to fulfill the Heenes' quest for riches. And if someone in the media is foolish enough to give the Heenes a book/TV deal, we can expect an outcome similar to that of If I Did It.
Regardless, the extent to which the Heenes stand to benefit from having a Wikipedia article is not a valid consideration. Our encyclopedia is intended to reflect reality (not an idealized version of it), and the reality is that the event in question has achieved international notoriety (whether we like it or not). —David Levy 23:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No educated person I know believes the mainstream media is even a dim reflection of "reality". In fact, quite the opposite. mdf (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're using the word "reality" to refer to the world that exists outside of (and is documented by) the mainstream media. I'm referring to the entire world, including the mainstream media themselves. You dislike the mainstream media and want Wikipedia to ignore (or at least significantly downplay) their societal influence, which contradicts the project's fundamental editorial principles. —David Levy 23:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The MSM documents something, but to refer to that as "reality" is awesomely naive. I encourage you to cleanly separate the two because it is the only way to honestly assess reliability and notability. You must observe how the media functions, as well as its output, in order to carry out these assessments. Mingle the two and you end up doing stupid things like calling up CNN and asking if they are a "reliable source", and taking their response at face value. mdf (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not referring to what the mainstream media document. I'm referring to everything in existence, including the mainstream media themselves. These organizations exist on Earth and possess a great deal of societal influence (whether you like it or not). They are part of reality. —David Levy 00:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also completely mystified about this "fundamental editorial principles" stuff. Firstly, because as far as I can tell, you are not espousing any principle other than "whatever comes down the MSM's pipe can go straight into the encyclopedia". This is not editorial discretion at work: this is a lackeyesque mouthpiece. You have no principles, beyond what principles are reflected in the source itself. You have accepted them and their decisions on all matters of reliability, notability, and so forth. mdf (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Baseless ad hominem ignored. —David Levy 00:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But more importantly, as far as I can tell, nothing I've said it in any way inconsistent with the "fundamentals" of this project. Heck, in addition to everything else I've noted, asking that an article not be solely sourced by the MSM is a direct encouragement of a broader point of view. mdf (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring reliable sources (by the community's established standards) in an attempt to counter their influence is inconsistent with Wikipedia's fundamental principles. Ignoring international notoriety because it stems from the aforementioned influence is inconsistent with Wikipedia's fundamental principles. Basing any editorial decisions on social activism (apart the Wikimedia Foundation's mission to foster free content) is inconsistent with Wikipedia's fundamental principles. —David Levy 00:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LEAVE IT Here's why, there is a press conference today at 9:30p.m. Eastern Time[4]. This maybe really turn out to be interesting.. Not everything on Wiki has to be of a serious nature, lighten up guys... laugh a little, it's good for you.. Loosen those ties..Life's to darn short..—Tom

CNN brought in a crime expert that reads body language a short while ago. She said the guy was covering up and the kid was telling the truth. The problem is that everyone is making such a big deal out of it that the family is achieving their goal.--Windowasher (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That, other than in the immediate, much like the topics long term notability, remains to be seen. I suspect the family (really: the parents) are already starting to regret being so 'successful' at bringing themselves into such a particularly bright spotlight. Regardless, I don't think the measure of notability can be affected by the fact that notoriety is being actively sought, if it is successfully achieved.--Jaymax (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
300 years from now, no one will even remember what happened on Thursday. I'll be surprised if anyone cares much in a month, let alone a year. Quick experiment: can you even recall the date of the last school shooting? The name(s) of those who pulled the triggers? Your future psychologists will have plenty of examples of far more recent cases to examine. The best case, relative to the current event, is a footnote in media ethics texts or something. mdf (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Straw-man fallacy - you can't judge the encyclopaedic value of something based on whether someone already remembers the facts without having to look them up. The question should be, do you appreciate being able to research the last school shooting - or, in a months time, will it be sufficiently useful to enough people to be able to research this in an online encyclopaedia (ie: was it historically (in the one-month sense) notable).--Jaymax (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm afraid there are thousands of articles (particularly on people) whose subject is 300 years old that the vast majority of people in the world don't remember (or even care about). But in that brief moment those subjects existed, they were notable enough people, places, things, or events to warrant inclusion in the database that strives to contain 'the sum of human knowledge'.--K10wnsta (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that we are now interested in people 300 years in the past has no bearing on what people today are going to be interesting to psychologists 300 years from now. We simply have no idea, only guesses. Jaymax says it may be convenient to have an article here for future researchers, but even that is a complete unknown. Even today, Wikipedia states that it is fundamental unreliable source. Why should future research even use it? mdf (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nor can you ascertain the value by speculating about psychologists 300 years from now. How many ego-maniacs will be alive then?
But the "memory test" is a good first approximation to notability, as is recent memory of similar events (I'm guessing you don't remember them ;-) However, it is not the last approximation: everyone remembers what happened on 2001-09-11. Some tens of millions of people also recall what they were doing on 1965-11-09 or even 2003-08-14. There are lots of people who know when airplanes crashed, how many died, details of the investigation and lots of books have been written on them. The same can be said for school shooting, and even breakdowns in normal media functioning have their aficionados (I have some of their output!). Someone, somewhere, will remember and create non-mainstream news references. Probably of substantially higher quality, if prior history with this kind of thing is any indication. And if no one ever does, that too is your answer re: notability. mdf (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MAJORNEWSNETWORKSACROSSTHEGLOBEWITHTHOUSANDSPOSSIBLYMILLIONSWATCHINGANDDISRUPTEDMANYPEOPLESLIVESANDCOULDPROVETOBEAHUGEHOAX ANDAVERYNOTABLEEVENTANDTHEFACTTHATWIKIPEDIAHASMORECONTENTABOUTTHISSUBJECTTHANWIKINEWSANDTHATWOULDBELOSTWITHOUTATRANSWIKI]]. Just kidding.  ;) However, this could prove to be very notable, so I'll amend my vote with until it falls out of the media eye, wait three weeks, then we can make a wise decision. mynameinc (t|c|p) 23:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(I installed line breaks in your joke so the page wasn't eleventeen million inches wide. --K10wnsta (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I have a feeling we'll be hearing about this for many months to come. If the hoax is exposed, every court appearance and judgment will bring the issue back up. If they get away with it, we'll hear about the book deals or reality show or whatever garbage the family will attempt to peddle as a result (I fear we'll be hearing about those regardless of how much of the truth comes out and how far down the rabbit hole we go). --K10wnsta (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we hear about it for that long of a time period, then it's definitely notable. mynameinc (t|c|p) 02:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's notable as the longest discussion ever to delete a non-notable article.--Windowasher (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it appeared in more than 109 papers.  :) The text in quotation marks is a good example of the straw man fallacy. mynameinc (t|c|p) 03:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is false; fame is not equivalent to notability in any regard. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid that's not true. A definition for notable is "widely known", which can be considered synonomous with fame. [5]
  • Please see Wikipedia:Notability, a page that explains the concept of noteworthiness on Wikipedia, which is often very different than that of real-life. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has this article "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject?" –Howard the Duck 04:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article?" or "context of a single event"? Has CNN has gone to the level of Fox News (LOL) and became tabloid journalism? Most of our sports articles are sourced this way, should we delete them too? –Howard the Duck 04:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another question would be, which has more weight? WP:N's green checkmark or WP:NOT's blue check mark, which is ultimately derived from WP:N? –Howard the Duck 04:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No such requirement is mentioned on the page to which you linked (or on any other page that I'm aware of). —David Levy 04:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break #4[edit]

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.
Category