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. Or weak keep; at any rate, the article stays for now. Sandstein 19:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Thomas Salme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable WP:BLP1E. Softlavender (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nomination. I have just reported what I consider to be promotional editing in this article at WP:ANI, where I remarked on the questionable notability of someone who's sole evidence of 'notability' (notoriety would be a better word) is to be found in a few short press articles from the time of his conviction. Evidence elsewhere on the interwebs seems to indicate that Salme is keen on promoting himself, and that he thinks that his story makes him deserving of further publicity, but I see no reason why Wikipedia should assist him in that. 86.143.229.185 (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)— 86.143.229.185 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . This IP has come to my talk page and identified himself as someone who "has been editing Wikipedia for years (longer than you have, it appears), with a dynamic IP." I will AGF and strike this as he requests.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Possibly re purpose either to the crime, or to the book by Salme (En bluffpilots bekännelse: Thomas Salmes 13 år i himlen). As evident in even a cursory BEFORE - the incident (a pilot without a flying license - flying for 13 years as first officer and then captain of large passenger carrying civil aircraft (737)) gained very international coverage - continuing coverage - that clearly passes WP:NEVENT/WP:NCRIME. Further more, Salme has penned a book that would seem to pass WP:NBOOK - e.g. coverage here in Svenska Dagbladet on the book in 2012 - [1]. (I'd further note that Salme has publicized this - so we do not have BLP privacy concerns (nor would BLPCRIME be an issue - as he was convicted)). Icewhiz (talk) 07:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment but this is not the Swedish Wikipedia... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes... And? Your comment has no bearing on notability - please see WP:NOENG. While we do prefer English language sources, Swedish language sources may be used as well. The book (in Swedish) seems to pass NBOOK on Swedish sources. The incident/crime/event (flying without a license) - passes NEVENT/NCRIME even just with English sources (though the scope of international coverage here is such that a multitude of additional sources in available in other languages as well). Icewhiz (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think people might find your arguments about notability being demonstrated by sources more convincing if you provided a few more. 86.143.229.185 (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure - CBS, 2010, book from 2011, Aftonbladet 2012, RTL 2016, Panorama 2017 (seems the book got translated to Italian - [2]), Expressen 2019. (also - also coverage in English on the book, but possibly not independent as he works for Lucire) This is a trivial pass for NEVENT/NCRIME (meets GNG and furthermore - WP:INDEPTH, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:DIVERSE, WP:GEOSCOPE, and would seem to be WP:LASTING (given that the subject is mentioned in coverage of subsequent similar cases)). Also trivially meets WP:NBOOK - as I've produced two independent non-trivial works on the book (and more are available). Icewhiz (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep book hits [3], major international news coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't call a link to a Google search that merely shows that Salme's book can be found on the google.books website evidence for much in the way of 'major news coverage'. Particularly when the fourth item on Google's list (after three links to their own website) is to a book published in 1737, on the subject of 'The Church History of England'. And nor do subsequent items on books published prior to the Thomas Salme in question here ever entering an aircraft cockpit. Or books published since, on subjects such as 'Social Constructionism', or an autobiography of Sven-Göran Eriksson. Writing a book that Google advertises doesn't make you notable... 86.143.229.185 (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You missed the - quite obvious - good book hit, now added to page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think I missed anything 'obvious' from the Google search I saw. Google search does not give consistent results, which is why linking to it isn't a good idea. If you want to cite something as evidence for notability in an AFD discussion, do it properly. 86.143.229.185 (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Xe did not miss it. It does not turn up as a search result, for me either; and Google Books does not permit me to search the book for anything. A handwave in the general direction of a search engine, Google Books or otherwise, is not a citation. User:Uncle G/On common Google Books mistakes. Uncle G (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I added a book 2 reliably published books to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (but consider moving) - reading the relevant paragraph of BLP1E "Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident [...] For example, Steve Bartman redirects to Steve Bartman incident. In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved.". I wouldn't say the latter circumstance arises. But the article could be renamed the "Thomas Salme incident" or such. Alternatively, it could be said that this is a set of incidents, and possibly BLP1E doesn't apply. In any case, the content should be retained, whether retitled or not. I don't know why Nom didn't just consider moving and rephrasing this rather than AfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He has accrued international and persistent coverage in reliable news sources (CBS, RTL, Telegraph, Il Sussidiario, Panorama, aftonbladet, Der Standard, etc) as well as literature ([4]), from the incident occurring in 2010 to the present. ——SerialNumber54129 13:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically, Icewhiz, whose post I omitted to see but says much of what I tiresomely repeated. ——SerialNumber54129 13:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - barely notable, but squeaks over the line. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I read the AftonBladet source. It's a report of someone on Facebook (one Malin Johansson) decrying the book on Facebook. It is not a particularly useful source of information for documenting this article subject's life and works, as it contains little in the way of solid facts. So I read the Panorama source. It's an infomercial for the book that ends with an outright instruction to buy it. I thought to then try the Expressen source. It's actually not about this person at all, but about someone else entirely. This person receives a one sentence namecheck at the end, that does not add any actual information about this person's life and works that could have been sourced years ago. It is not continued coverage at all. ilSussidario is a trailer for a television interview with the subject, promoting xyr book, again that does not actually discuss anything else than the original events.

  I think that people need to start actually reading these sources that are being waved around. One needs to actually read the things that one's searches turn up.

  Uncle G (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment by nominator: My feeling is that this wiki article is in essence promotion for the person and his book. He's already infamous for his self-promotion, and his friends wrote this article for him. Most of the links I find online are passing mentions or mentions of his book(s). Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMO, and I find this article an embarrassing example of just that. He does not pass WP:NAUTHOR, and his putative notability is strictly his one-event stunt -- which may have lasted over time, but it's still one event. Softlavender (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've no idea whether the article was originally written as promotion, but I don't feel it reads as such. It certainly doesn't rise to the level to warrant deletion, rather than cleanup. Notability is reasonably well shown, even if not glowingly done. BLP1E seems the most reasonable grounds but you've not specified why you think it can't just be moved to being the event and slightly tweaked. BLP1E isn't supposed to remove content from the encyclopedia. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as textbook WP:BLP1E. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Followup to Uncle G above, if you look at the book on Goodreads & Amazon, it's pretty patchy and doesn't seem to have been curated at all by a publisher, it looks self published although the Google Play edition is definitely by established publisher Norstedts. It's not actually BY him, it's ghosted, although that hasn't stopped Blair etc al. But if he is to be notable for the book, it's not a very notable book - and not by him! I keep coming back to Nom's assertion of WP:BLP1E... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• comment revisiting in the light of comments above, I again considered the WP:BLP1E aspects of this pilot's, er... career. Certainly privacy concerns do not have much weight because Salme published a book about the flying with a forged pilots license. But the main thing is, there has been some ONGOING interest in the story over the years. In a book. In articles about the tightening of resume vetting in the wake of this and other scandals. And, most recently for similarity to Fake SAA pilot: How William Chandler flew illegally for 20 years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have thought that the fact that other people have been caught doing the same thing would make this particular example less noteworthy. 86.143.229.185 (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does a source that makes no mention of this article subject at all prove that point? It would seem to demonstrate the opposite, if anything. Uncle G (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to an article in English, the connection is made in articles published in Swedish and other languages - I put the Swedish article on the page. The point, however, is that there has been ongoing coverage. But it was the articles that discuss this case as part of a group of fake-credential scandals that led to a wave of more thorough corporate resume vetting that persuaded me that this is not quite a BLP1E.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If 'fake-credential scandals' in general are being discussed in multiple reliable sources, that is a justification for an article on the general subject, rather than this one. 86.143.229.185 (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes our notability guide per WP:RS Tonereport (☎) 18:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- passes WP:RS and WP:GNG barely but still enough to justify inclusion at this time.BabbaQ (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not a OneEvent topic. Article is not about any single event (eg: his arrest), but about his career, covered thinly but adequately. More than sufficient RS to establish N. The lede sentence could be revised to avoid inadvertent impression of BLPIE: "Thomas Salme is a pilot who flew commercial airliners in Europe for 13 years without a valid license." DonFB (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as passing the WP:GNG. WP:BLPIE does not apply. I made some improvements to the article and its references before adding my support to keeping the entry. gidonb (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:BLP1E > WP:GNG. Toddst1 (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst1, do note that this perp self-publicizes his crime, writing a book, and so forth. I can see a NOTPROMO argument for deleting more easily that I can see a PRIVACY argument.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That said, if someone wanted to create a List of fake pilot credential scandals and propose merging this to said page, I would support such a move. It's quite remarkable how many of these there have been.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2019 (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.