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

The result was delete.

I have not even tried to count the number of "keeps" and "deletes" in this discussion. It appears to be roughly even, perhaps with slightly more keeps. But given that (a) consensus is not a vote; and (b) this debate has been unduly affected by a large number of poorly reasoned "votes", counting is not helpful.

Consensus is particularly not a vote when there are policies (as opposed to inclusion guidelines) that affect the discussion. This is the case here. WP:BLP1E is part of our biographies of living persons policy. WP:NOTNEWS is also a policy that goes to the fundamentals of what the project is, by defining what it is not. These policies were raised consistently by those who argued to delete the article such that there was one clear reason to delete that underpinned just about all of the delete !votes. The arguments were cogent and persuasive.

On the keep side, various arguments for retention were used. First, it was argued that there was sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Those arguments need to be given less weight because they fail to recognise that notability-based reasons for inclusion are subject to overriding policies like BLP1E and NOTNEWS. Second, analogies were drawn to other articles that had been kept. These opinions also have to be given less weight: for every "similar" keep there have been notable "similar" deletes. Every article is different. That's why we have AfD.

The more compelling keep arguments were those that attempted to show that the article surmounted BLP1E and NOTNEWS, thus directly addressing the core concern of the delete !voters. There were two strands here. Early in the debate, some argued that Slater would remain significant over time. Clearly, that crystal balling should be given little weight. The second strand, later in the debate, was that the coverage of the incident surpassed BLP1E. Ultimately, I don't think this argument was made with sufficient strength, or had sufficient support, to stand in the way of the policy-based consensus to delete the article. The arguments to keep struggled to get beyond the assertion that "massive amounts of news coverage" gets an article past BLP1E.

Accordingly, there was one core policy-based reason to delete against fairly scattered arguments to keep of varying natures and (often low) weight. When viewed objectively, the consensus in the debate - based on an analysis of the arguments and applicable policies as opposed to headcounting - was to delete. And I stress the word objective: I have no problem with the article personally, but when assessing the strength of the arguments here objectively, the result seems clear.

I recognise this will be a close that will disappoint people. Anyone who wishes to appeal this decision to deletion review can feel free to bypass questioning the close on my talk page. Thank you to everyone for an interesting discussion. Mkativerata (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Slater

[edit]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Comment As more "facts" and speculation are added to the article, it is begining to read more and more negatively, another reason for deletion GainLine ♠ ♥ 12:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Negative in what way? Can you be more specific? If the article stays, it would be a non-neutral point of view to only write about the positive aspects and ignore the negative aspects. –BMRR (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are two different versions of events, neither have been substantiated and are subject to speculation. Not an ideal situation for a BLP GainLine ♠ ♥
But the fact that Slater's version doesn't match up with the version given by some of the passengers is part of the fabric of the incident. Both versions are extensively sourced to reliable sources. I agree that it's not an ideal situation for a BLP, but can you explain why the article should be deleted rather than moved/renamed to a non-BLP article? –BMRR (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E, WP:RECENT, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GRAPEVINE GainLine ♠ ♥ 20:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added the appropriate merge tags on Steven Slater and Flight attendant. patsw (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comment Hell no. What is the rush? AFD's should last the full period, to avoid drama at deletion review. Edison (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oh, you're just worried about being confused with the guy. Much of history is "silly,", e.g., Mary Toft in 1726, Slater in 2010.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Who was that airplane pilot who landed in the river one time? Edison (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Also, Sullenberger is notable for his work outside of that one event. The fact that no article existed doesn't mean he didn't rate one. - Richfife (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Meets WP:BLP1E. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pity there's no WP:IICDIINN: "If I can do it, it's not notable". - Richfife (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
One gets the impression that people would use "snow delete" when the article's deletion is anything but sure. Get it out of here before there can be any debate. MrBook (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be no question. The man is being hailed as a national hero, already has a fan page on facebook with hundreds of thousands of followers. --Lamrock (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 1

[edit]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
These are all very good and valid points but wikipedia is not the place for them as per WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. GainLine ♠ ♥ 11:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No one is questioning notability with thousands of newspaper reports on him. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. A large volume of media coverage in itself is not sufficient.
  4. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No - there are numerous people who are only famous for one major event and we properly have articles upon them because of their great notability. See Rosa Parks, Tank Man, Gavrilo Princip, &c. The essential point of BLP1E is that a major notable event is not the occasion for writing separate biographies about all the people who were caught up in it. Separate biographies should only be created for individuals whose role in the event was central and are notable by virtue of the extensive coverage given to those particular people. We seem fine in this case because the person in question was quite central to the event and there is no separate article about the event. We are therefore not multiplying our articles about this notable matter beyond necessity. Removing all mention of the matter completely would be improper censorship contrary to core policy in that it would be based upon our own personal judgement of the matter rather than following the lead of the numerous independent professional publishers and editors who have decided that this matter is worthy of note. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Blast and dam found out. OK I admit it I am in fact called Steven Slater.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 2

[edit]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comment. I will stipulate:
  • The world (or at least world media) has noticed Steven Slater. He had the good fortune to do this in (1) media saturated New York and (2) on a very slow news day. That's not sufficient. Here's what the oft-cited never-until-now quoted policy is: patsw (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 3

[edit]
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)[reply]
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. GainLine ♠ ♥ 18:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I don't understand... Isn't one event notability enough? WP:NOT PAPER. BE——Critical__Talk 19:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Nice WP:IDONTLIKEIT tantrum, which does not contribute much to the present discussion. Edison (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I would support this even I voted delete earlier.—Chris!c/t 19:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No shit the event is notable. The nomination is to delete the article referring to the person, not the event. In this case, this idiot who has become famous for no damn reason. I support delete per snow, but support a merge to the flight number. --A3RO (mailbox) 20:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one could merge to flight number, but per WP:NAME I'm pretty sure his name is the correct title. BE——Critical__Talk 20:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
And if this were a voting election, you'd have a point. But it's NOT. This is a rundown of arguments and the number of people that bring inane WP:ILIKEIT arguments don't matter, they will be evaluated as WP:ILIKEIT rather than valid reasons to keep the article. As opposed to the dozens of people citing several different policies why it shouldn't be kept. That is why this is a SNOW delete, because, according to the policies of Wikipedia, the results of this discussion don't have a snowball's chance in hell of making this 1-event BLP into any kind of sustainable, notable event. There's not a snowball's chance in hell that this guy is notable or will be notable in the future. Besides, even if there is a chance he can parlay this into some kind of Perez Hilton-like noteriety that's still going to happen in the future and keeping the article based on that violates WP:CRYSTAL. So, since there is a snowball's chance in hell of this article NOT violating WP:BLP1E and a snowball's chance in hell of this article NOT violating WP:CRYSTAL then it should be deleted - per WP:SNOW. Padillah (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Padillah, while you're right that it's not a simple matter of what has the most votes, there is still a matter of consensus, and, as of this point, we have nothing even resembling a consensus to delete. Your novel reinterpretation of WP:SNOW is convoluted at best. If your "delete" vote is based on BLP1E, then just cite that, but SNOW makes no sense in this case at all. Other users have simply looked at the same policies and come to a different conclusion than you have. The "delete" votes which simply cite "SNOW" are essentially not citing a reason at all. -Helvetica (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 4

[edit]
This user has already voted once above. SilverserenC 16:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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
4. There is an essay (not a guideline) with a section specifically addressing the treatment of accidents and incidents: WikiProject Aviation/Notability#Accidents
5. There are standard templates for these types of articles: WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Templates
6. The task force has a proposed style guideline: WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Accidents)
7. There are annual lists of aircraft accidents and incidents; see: Category:21st-century aviation accidents and incidents
8. 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.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, and not a collection of the merely unusual events in the news. Not every reckless endangerment arrest is going to merit an article. That is a very low bar for a crime-related article. patsw (talk) 11:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed my point. Please take another look at my comments both immediately above and elsewhere in this AfD. This should not be a crime-related article. I never said it should be a crime-related article. I said it should be converted to an aviation-related article with a new title. There are many community-supported precedents (including several hundred well-edited aircraft accident and incident articles), a well-developed structure for such articles, a proposed notability guideline and a Wikiproject for dealing with aviation incidents. Based on all of this, this event should be covered as either a full article or a well-developed subsection in the JetBlue Airways article. If you disagree with how the community handles these sorts of articles in general, then I suggest you start a conversation at the appropriate Wikiproject and on the talk page of the proposed guideline I cited previously. In the meantime, I am suggesting that we handle this event in accordance with well-established practice. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed my point. It is not correct to apply the aviation incident template to this article. The only aviation hook is the unauthorized deployment of the evacuation slide by a flight attendant which resulted in no injury, no panic -- therefore no consequence. It is a non-event in terms of big aviation. This is but one aspect of the big story. It most certainly is a crime story, a popular culture story, a how-did-the-media-cover-this story, how did an overnight hero become a lying and unemployed loser story, a secret fantasy-fulfilled story, etc. Aspects of all these narratives apply. patsw (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouod now tend to agree (especialy as it now seems he was rude and stropy thruout the flight) that this is more about the airline industry then theis one man. It shouold be merged with an article about this kind of incident (is there one)?Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.It now begins to kook like a drunk steward unable to control himself wigged oot and is trying to defelect blame and keep his job. This is going to turn out to be a one hit wonder. As tol being a hero, all I can say is Yoour May bsht may. But it may refelct a wider problom of poor attitude and work ethic from cabin crew and atrempts to cover up drunkeness of cabin crew by airlines. So maybe this will have some millage.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Comment.I think this case illustrates nicely why we shouod wait before creating articels on curretn news events. It now begins to lokk like a very different situation from the one the artciel first represented. The artciel, will have to be constantly updated just to keep abreast of the changing story. If however a week or so had been waited then then we would have a better articel, and an idera of its actual significance.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My friend showed me this and it cracks me up. Encyclopedias are supposed to be stuffy. This is not an encyclopedic article. As far as rules, you can bend them and cite anything you want. There are rules supporting keep and supporting delete. Someone must have made up Wikipedia rules to conflict on purpose. The only way to decide is for you to be arbitrary since the Wikipedia rules conflict. This is just a goofball person. Notslater (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 5

[edit]

- Keep - The parallels between this article and what the Chesley Sullenberger once looked like is striking. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is, one was a man whos actions saved hundreds of lives, the other was a man who appears to have got drunk and made an arse of himslef. One has a respected record as a safty oficer and has won numoerous awards the other is a man who wigged out on an airplane? How are these people alike?Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
News coverage is now making parallels between Slater's actions and Sullenberger's (I linked a NYtimes blog article comparison between the two), and Slater's becoming part of a wider discussion of the animosity between passengers and the airlines in general. I really feel like he's easily now more important than a WP:BLP1E. Nomader (Talk) 16:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the event may have wider resonance as an example of airline passenger relations (though it seems to be more about airline worker attitudes towards passengers and airlines). But he is not what is important, its what the overall case represents. That is why I say merge into a larger article. Also blogs may demonstrate that some one gives a hoot, not that that hooting is notable.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - These section breaks are not "Abritrary", they are actually necessary to the readability of the page. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was done to prevent edit conflicts. Dream Focus 16:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Something can be arbitrary and necessary at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive. Arbitrary refers to the fact that the locations where the section breaks were inserted were chosen arbitrarily. SnottyWong chatter 16:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question for you. Whats to prevent people from doing something off the wall and crazy, in order to get a wikipedia page about themeslves? That was, I believe, the whole reason for WP:BLP1E, or am I mistaken? Yes there seems to be massive coverage, but not enough for this guy to have his won article. A section in another article would deal with the notability issues.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just being an 5 minute Interlebrity should not be reason for inclusion. Nor is the amnount of covrage. Its been (what) 5 days and its still the saem story. No changes in law. No reason to assume its anything more then it is a minor one off blown out of all proportion by an attempt to create an internomina so that some smart alecks can sit back and say "we created tha2".Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Observation I don't think I've ever seen this many individuals participate in a discussion, but it's now more than 100. For those who are counting opinions, it's 36 of one and 64 of another (or is it the other way around, hmmm...), with other comments being labeled as redirect, merge or no opinion. My only concern in letting one of these go on for seven days is in the potential for hard feelings. However, I'm pleased to say that it's been a very pleasant discussion of ideas. In fact, the only mention of the word "civil" has been in a reference to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Congratulations to all parties on this one. Mandsford 12:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By my loose count, it appears to be 55 Keep/Change Name to 46 Delete/Redirect. I might be off by a few on both, since some people voted weird or buried their vote in what they were saying or stuff like that. But, for the most part, this entire discussion seems to be a almost exact No Consensus. SilverserenC 18:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter, AfD is not a vote. SnottyWong chatter 19:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it matters. I suggested away up this pile of crap that this be early closed as no consensus, but a ball-bearing admin is needed for that task.--Milowent • talkblp-r 20:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Does this make him more notable? SnottyWong squeal 19:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. I saw that on the Taiwanese national news, they did a whole CGI animation of the whole incident, its hilarious.--Milowent • talkblp-r 20:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a duty of care to living people, in three months when this person is happily forgotten and back to living his private life then our hosting a biography about this single reported issue in his life may not be the best thing for him. He has a right to our following our guidelines in an attempt to protect him and not being like a free web host that creates articles about such single issues in not notable peoples lives, or even worse anyone that three citations can be found and all similar so called viral internal issues that users find interesting Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there needs to be a much stricter enforcement of WP:BLP1E. This can get out of hand very quickly if all one needs to do is get a little press, and BOOM, theres a wikipedia article all about that person. I fear that a trend may begin to evolve in which people start doing crazy things just to get into wikipedia. The only way to combat this would to strictly enforce WP:BLP1E.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I would say the last thing Slater is concerned about at this moment is an article about him on Wikipedia. For example, a SWAT team had been sent to arrest him for his activities. And if I remember the latest tv news story about him correctly, he was facing felony charges. Other people have overreacted about his antics who can hurt him worse physically & monetarily than an inaccurate Wikipedia article -- llywrch (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because other bad things are happening to him does not mean that we should ignore our policies and host an article about him. I do appreciate that he may well have presently other worries, but in a few months these people are eaten by titillating society and because we allow our policies to be hijacked by the viral attention are stuck with hosting the poor guys single notable act forever and a day. Off2riorob (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So our policies dictate that we protect people from their own stupid actions? And even if the article is removed & all charges dismissed, in a few month when Slater starts looking for a new job, potential employers will remember what he did & decide whether it is worth their while to interview him. He made his bed; he can sleep in it. -- llywrch (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re the suggestion that Slater has bigger problems than this article: Currently, that is true. But what about in two or ten years time? After the legal processes about this one-day wonder have passed, he may go to a job interview where the interviewer is reading this article. Of course Slater will always feature in archives of blogs and gossip aggregators, but Wikipedia has very high Google impact and is often considered important in the real world. We do not remove negative material because it might cause trouble for an individual, but we have a responsibility to ensure that BLP articles really do meet notability requirements, particularly when we can see that the article will aggravate the damage for this person. Since the only reason to keep this article is that the incident is awesomely funny (and was therefore widely reported), this BLP fails WP:BIO. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good points (although potential employers who Google his name will be just as likely to find articles from ABC, CBS, NBC, NYT, WSJ, etc. -- I suspect those would be more damaging than a Wikipedia article, and I also suspect that those organizations are not going to remove those articles from their web sites out of concern for Slater's future employability). All the more reason to move the article to JetBlue Airways Flight 1052 and put the focus on the incident, rather than the person. BIO and BLP1E would no longer apply. –BMRR (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has JetBlue suspended the flight number? Does this "incident" fulfill the criteria for inclusion in Lists of aviation accidents and incidents? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also notability is not temporary. I have seen the argument lets keep it for not and see. IOts often ends up with a second AFD and a well if he was famous then he still is now approach. What is the point of crystal if we ignore it?Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Steven Stater *really* wants the article about that other Steven Slater to get deleted! I guess as long as there's an article with that name on Wikipedia it could be be hard to live it down ;-) -Helvetica (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should become familar with WP:BLP1E before coming to a conclusion.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with it. I'm just saying. You AfD immediately, you get a mess. You AfD later, it goes away with much less fuss. This is my limited experience, it is not statistically significant, not endorsed by the Wikimedia foundation, no purchase required, must be legal drinking age, etc etc. --99.245.206.188 (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
??What is the ten minute rule? I've never heard it before and I can't find anything on it. Being technical and pedantic,the first vote was made over 20 minutes after the AFD went live. GainLine ♠ ♥ 11:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was only invented by 99.245.206.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) about 300 minutes ago. It refers Andy Warhol's "15 minutes of fame." You should not start an AfD before someone's first fifteen minutes of fame is over - worse yet, if it has not even started. Wait till after the evening news. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 6

[edit]
Didn't you vote already? I'm not the most up-to-date on Wikipedia policies, but it's my understanding that you're only supposed to make *one* bold "keep" or "delete" vote. Everything there after should be labeled (if at all) as a comment. Helvetica (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are only allowed to vote once. And yes he has already voted, I would susgest this vote is struck.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See [4] and [5] --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went and struck out the second vote under Arbitrary Section Break 4, which leaves only the user's original vote up higher on the page. A3RO, please remember to only vote once or it will seem like you are trying to vote-stack. SilverserenC 16:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It took 4 people to say the same thing? --A3RO (mailbox) 16:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently so. :D SilverserenC 16:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This does appear to have become drunk airline stewards wigs out and throws a wobbler story with no wider significane then that. Oddly then part about Jetblues actions which is far more interesting and important seems to be being ignored in the frenzy over a stroppy steward.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's under dispute whether or not he was drunk before he wigged out. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the problom wiht pages about ongoing evetns, we don't know the final outcome. If they were some earth shatering news sstory there might bne some justification for it. its not its just some bloke throwing his rattle out of the pram (at best). also his status as a folk hero is in dispute.Slatersteven (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. You say he "had lots of keep I like him votes and was still this week AFD deleted as a one event." Could you please post a link to the archived AFD discussion which had all those "keep I like him votes"? For some reason I couldn't seem to find it...Funny, huh?! -Helvetica (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure its relevant (and I was involed).Slatersteven (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between that AfD and this one is that most of the Keep votes in this discussion are actually using policy-based rationales. For example, the Keep vote right above your comment. SilverserenC 22:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The more I look at this person and I look at the coverage in the citations and the world wide reporting of this person and if the article is kept tidy and well cited, I still support a name change but I could vote comment keep . Off2riorob (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn't realize that it had expired. The vandalism certainly hasn't stopped, so it should continue to be protected. –BMRR (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. Article has been protected for another week. Favonian (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This has gone beyond WP:BLP1E. Perhaps he is not John Hinckley, Jr. -- Steven Slater did't try to assassinate a president.. but he has made ripples around the world by leaving his employment in a manner that is unique, exceptional, and inspiring. Peggy Noonan: We pay them to Be Rude to Us. Steven Slater is now an icon and, in all honesty, will have a greater cultural legacy than John Hinckley, Jr.. There are thousands of relevant news stories about Steven Slater and Wikipedia has always maintained exceptional coverage of Air-related incidents; how would this not be an air-related incident worthy of coverage? — Twomper84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Fortunatly consensus is not a vote, but based on arguments by both sides of the issue. As WP:BLP1E supercedes the only two arguments used as keep, which are WP:BIO and WP:RS. This is the whole reason why wikipedia has WP:BLP1E.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, "consensus" in this case is based on 130 kilobytes of rubbish (and counting). Nothing against any individual comment or commentator, just that collectively, it's a waste and a general embarassment to Wikipedia. --192.75.48.150 (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just shouting "BLP1E" does not achieve the deletion of an article about a person or their actions or an event which has gained worldwide notability in thousands of instances of significant coverage by independent and reliable sources, such as the present [5 thousand plus references at Google New3s for Steven Slater. Otherwise we would have deleted Joe the Plumber, Balloon Boy, and Chesley Sullenberger, all of whose articles survived AFD, along with numerous crime/criminal/victim articles. Edison (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category