Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colorado balloon incident

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

I'm explicitly invoking

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

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

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 csp |username}}.

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

• Please see also AFD for the merged material at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon Heene. –xeno^talk 20:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hold for Comments. Current events are necessarily in flux (that's why they're current), but if there is reliably sourced and verifiable information out there about what happened (and is happening), then an article is appropriate. This debate runs for 7 days; it's likely that the subject will be old news by then, and a clear picture of what happened will emerge in reliable sources that can be cited to discuss the subject in a neutral manner. I agree that NOTNEWS is an important consideration, here, but it is likely that this event will be notable enough for an article, and if that's the case, deletion is premature. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• With all due respect, User:TJRC has not been all that fair in his actions here. He seems very eager to be the "loudest voice" to delete these articles. The results from the Falcon Heene AfD are in favor of merging that article with this one. And as soon as it is merged, TJRC adds the AfD to the Colorado balloon incident article, but does NOT link to the previous AfD. These acts are unwelcome because they shut out other wikipedians from having a say. 71.174.73.50 (talk) 20:52, 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]

• Apology accepted 71.174.73.50 (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Wait It was inevitable that this article would be created, and inevitable that it would go immediately to afd. As with any big news story, we simply need to wait a while before acting.Beach drifter (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep well sourced, and its unusual nature makes it notable UltraMagnus^speak 21:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Especially now that the boy is missing. The family was also on
  talk) 21:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  21:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Do we really need to have this discussion? The news is all over it. Of course it's worthy. --Dan Leveille^TALK 21:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All over the news" means it's newsworthy. That's not in dispute, and is a great reason to cover it in
    not in Wikipedia. That's the whole point of the nomination. TJRC (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Every time I look for an encyclopedic account of something happening in the news I see someone is trying to delete that information. What on earth is the purpose of this? I came here because I am LOOKING FOR INFORMATION. Who would ever come to this article unless they were looking for the information? How could it possibly make Wikipedia better to delete information that people are looking for? On the contrary I think it makes Wikipedia look extremely stupid to always be deleting the things that people are interested in. Why not wait until people are no longer interested to decide if it has any lasting impact? Why is there a rush to destroy the information as soon as possible and when people are most interested in it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.37.216.66 (talk) 14:20, October 15, 2009
  • Why would you look in an encyclopedia for news? Why not a news source? TJRC (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with 209.37.. Wikipedia is a dynamic encyclopedia. Much of what is added is currently in the news. Yet many editors feel like wikipedia should be like the archaic encyclopedia's, and wait wait wait to publish anything "new". If there are reliable sources, why not? The beauty of wikipedia is it can be changed, quite easily! There are many people on wiki that are notable now (Miley Cyrus) who may not be notable "enough" in 5,10,20 years. But we don't have a glass ball. Remember Chesley Sullenberger? Landed that flight in the Hudson? Same situation as this, some editors feeling it wont be "notable", that it's news and not encyclopedic. Or Michael Jackson's death. Would those same editors feel the same about 9/11? Invasion of Iraq? Most notable events make the news. That doesn't mean they cannot, or should not be included in a real-time encyclopedia. Or else it just defeats the purpose of being able to edit an article and have it appear instantly. Might as well make every edit go through an editorial/approval before being posted. Might as well print it on paper and put it in stores. That might be a greeaaatt idea. KevinBSB (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm looking for an encyclopedic account of a news event. The style of an encyclopedia article is very different from the style of a news story. This is one of the things Wikipedia does best -- compile encyclopedic accounts of news events in real time. Did you not know this? Even the New York Times once wrote about how good Wikipedia is at this after the tragedy at Virginia Tech. And yet you want to destroy one of Wikipedia's great strengths? You can go to a news source if you want news stories. Why not let me come here for a real-time encyclopedia entry?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.37.216.66 (talk) 14:26, October 15, 2009
      • As far as I can tell, Wikinews handled this very well. There doesn't appear to have been any coverage missing from the news story there that was present in the Wikipedia article. To the extent there was, the Wikiworld would have been better served by having the editors who were pouncing on this flash-in-the-pan news story instead working on the news story that it actually was. You were no better served looking to Wikipedia than you would have been looking to Wikinews. TJRC (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. Pretty much my standard answer for news type events like this. It certainly seems notable with the attention its getting right now, but the only way we'll have enough perspective to know for certain if its encyclopedic is to give it time to play out, then look at it in a month or two. If its not encyclopedic, or we deem it not worthy of its own page, it can be deleted or merged to an appropriate target then. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should consider writing an essay on this... Umbralcorax (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and continue to improve. This article needs work and expansion. However, I also feel that it should remain on Wikipedia because of the stories contribution to ballooning, civil air accidents, etc. Michaelh2001 (talk) 21:31, 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

]

• Strong keep. Highly publicized notable person/current event. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: He has had an entire day of coverage devoted to him as well as 2 tv appearances. Family is known for storm chasing and this is an unusual event.--
  talk) 21:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Strong keep. Nearly every American media source considers this relevant. For many, it is front page news. It passes the notability test and the article needs time for development. Also, a speedy keep to remove the template for now and consider it later would be preferable, I have seen little dissent to keeping the article. - Absenteeist (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep even when this is no longer news (and instead history), it's likely to be notable enough to be worthy of a page in Wikipedia, especially considering that the parents are notable in their own right. dougmc (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball keep, at this point. What everybody else said. No, we're not a news site. Yes, this is
  notable under the circumstances. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• wait and see I think that if this incident has an impact on laws or anything, than it will definitely be important. If not, let the debate begin. --Heero Kirashami (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete this is a waste of an article with no aviation nor any other notariaty other then a slow day in the media. --Trashbag (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment Does the point that the kid was never in the balloon when it was aloft, and was instead hiding in an attic, change anyone's opinion about how notable this is? TJRC (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't change the fact that it was a serious event that earned an entire day of media attention.--

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.--

talk) 22:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Strong keep. The boy was found, and it's a history now, but what an interesting story it is. Half of the world watching drama with the frightened boy hiding all the time. Rekrutacja (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep and a possible strong delete when this is re-listed in a few weeks. It's simply too early to know if this event will be just another news item or whether it will be notable enough to be part of history. Let's wait until year-end news reviews to see if this "meets the test of time" as a significant event in the eyes of history. In the alternative, "Delete without prejudice to re-creation provided there are significant reliable sources that show this event is notable beyond its time in the news cycle." This means delete but wait and see if it shows up in the news-weekly magazines that go to press two issues from now. In summary: Wikipedia is not news, but it's too soon to tell if this is "merely news" or something actually encyclopedic. Therefore, procedural keep. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:31, 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]

• Keep and continue to improve . The notability here is the manner in which this story developed through Twitter and other social media, and the newspapers were well behind a good deal of the time. I can't cite that as I type now, but I am certain that I will find many references to this aspect of it in tomorrow's papers. Infojunkie23 (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Ffffff. This article, and this page, should be kept. When future generations ask for Wikipedia in a nutshell, we can point them here. 74.71.62.92 (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete
  « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a news service. This event is not notable because no one got hurt and the boy was never at risk because he was in the house the entire time. Spikydan1 (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are lots of sources for this event, and additional background will be available in the next few days. Because public interest will wane shortly, it is important for Wikipedia to conserve a thorough description. This is not a routine tabloid event, it has earned worldwide attention. --gribeco (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NOTNEWS, ghits≠notability, COATRACK. I can probably come up with more policy/guideline citations if needed. And for what it's worth, the kid was hiding in the attic the entire time, so the big hook is crushed on the anvil of reality. Horologium (talk) 23:15, 15 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]

• Delete Really no encyclopedical interest. Pymouss Let's talk 23:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (
  WP:CRYSTAL for why we should not keep this article on the off-chance that this might happen. Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of News-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong delete, we're
  not a news organisation. –blurpeace ^(talk) 23:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Notice how the deletes come in after he is found.
  talk) 23:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Yup. It's easy to confuse notability and newsworthiness, forgetting all about
    Wi}}. Allow everyone who wants to provide breaking updates to do so, and Wikipedia readers to find the story, and only bring it over to Wikipedia if it grows beyond newsworthiness. TJRC (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • That's actually quite a good idea. Drop me a note on my talk page if you discuss/implement it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This isn't even an enduring news story, it meets no established criteria for aviation incidents. It was a sensationalist news story for two hours until it was discovered that teh balloon was unmanned. The story will be forgotten before tomorrow morning, non-notable. - Ahunt (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's an interesting news story, but that's as far as it goes.
  Talk 05:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Reluctant Keep for now - National TV circus, hiding in the attic, Wife Swap, possible confession - this is weird at so many levels, I think it'll be notable for a long time. People will go to Wikipedia for information about it whether we purists like it or not.
  talk) 05:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong delete - per
  . . .talk) 05:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - the actual story--child hides in attic after releasing a helium balloon--isn't enough for an encyclopedia page. The only thing that could be notable from my perspective, is the media reaction (and the reaction to the reaction), and that is still developing. But even if there is significant fallout and recrimination about the way this was covered in the media and on cable news, I think it would belong in some other article, not on this purpose-built page for one among a string of red herring news stories. Leoniceno (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with the earlier post that the fact that the FAA grounded aircfaft and military aircraft from different installations make this article both newsworthy and notable." This event, just like a serious weather event (e.g., Blizzard of 2003), are notable and are properly displaying pages on Wikipedia. This incident is unique and most certainly will have impacts on news cycles for weeks to come. No other similar incident has gripped the nation's attention like this incident in recent memory. How many ridiculous articles on Wikipedia are there about non-existing, cryptozoological creatures (e.g., the lochness monster)? It is ridiculous to believe that this 2-hour event should be anything less important than a sporting event, like the NLCS, which undoubtedly will be reserved a page on Wikipedia. Maybe wikipedia would like to cross out the Holocaust page too? You know, the President of Iran says it never happened. Get real, this event matters. Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruthspeaker09 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Important piece of American popular culture and lore.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapinmies (talk • contribs)
  • Lore?? But tt's brand-new - Alison ^❤ 06:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For better or for worst, google news does feature wikipedia articles and this particular one is consistently on the GoogleNews home page that I see at this time (in the top 5 results, among varying others including CNN, BBC, Time etc). Not an argument on either side, but I thought it was worthy of notice, since there were comments regarding how people use wikipedia above. Antipastor (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This all shows that Wikinews is not doing nearly a good enough job of publicizing its existence. It's meant for this stuff. • Anakin ^(talk) 14:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Classic case of
  Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 06:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - I've heard a projet called wikinews is meant to deal with that kind of short-lived topics. What's the added encyclopedical value here? Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 06:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the reduced value? 74.241.105.140 (talk) 06:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC) .[reply]

• Delete - no encyclopaedic value. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - ephemeral piece of news.--Olethros (talk) 07:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Coverage clearly makes this notable and encyclopedic. Whitespider23 (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, worldwide media attention, people will remember this highly unusual incident in years --Novil Ariandis (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sincerely hope they will have better things to care about. Maybe we should move it to
    Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete.
  WP:NOTNEWS. The event is unlikely to have any lasting impact or lead to any changes in helium balloon regulations. I think you almost need an airship of helium to lift a child, so I think the incident was rather overblown in media as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. He was never in the balloon, just because his family and the media mistakenly believed he was does not make this incident important enough for an article. Nobody will remember this in a week. --Candy-Panda (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because of amount of media coverage 82.46.49.45 (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wow. A balloon that flew around Fort Collins for two hours. This story does not deserve an article and it doesn't deserve mentioning in the "Fort Collins" entry. There are 120,000 people in Fort Collins. That's 120,000 life stories. The city was founded in 1864. All of the users I see advocating keeping this crap are from somewhere other than Fort Collins. The news media cares more about the balloon than the town, and so do these people. But I don't think we should give them equal air time on this site.--Drknkn (talk) 09:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  Otterathome (talk) 10:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • One-off event? That's your argument? Just because something happened only once does not make it unnotable. Hours of folloowing the balloon and searching, and the use of the Air National Guard, make this at least as notable as the article on Wyoming Highway 70, just to give an example. --Delta1989 (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sending out 2 helicopters after a 911 call does not confer automatic notability, or we would have a separate story for each fishing boat which gets in trouble and calls the Coast Guard. Edison (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to be a notable enough event. Now if you started making pages for all of the people involved, I'd say delete 'em... but this just covers the event, which is getting worldwide media attention and is all over the news. - Prezboy1 talk 10:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - event is not notable beyond the immediate people concerned. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - With all signs pointing to a hoax perpetrated by the family, I'd vote delete on principle, to take away one source of the attention they did it for. - Chris McFeely (talk) 11:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Clearly this article is about
  not a news website. Bidgee (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • WP:ONEEVENT is only for creating seperate articles for the person and the event. It's not a criteria for deletion. --Delta1989 (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Strong Keep. This has gone beyond a news event, with panel discussions everywhere about how this happened and the nature of news reporting. Likely to become a case study in journalism school. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that a
    crystal ball you are looking in? mdf (talk) 12:40, 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]

• Kill it dead, dead, dead. It should be an acute embarrassment that articles exist here that are solely referenced by mainstream media sources. Have you people no shame at all? mdf (talk) 12:40, 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]

• Strong Keep. If someone comes to Wikipedia with a reasonable expectation that there will be an article about a subject, then there should be an article about that subject. What would be the point in deleting good information that's already here that people are looking for? It's sticking to the letter of the law at the expense of sticking to the spirit of the law. MrBook (talk) 12:44, 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. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 14:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close - I would recommend closing this AFD as "unable to divine consensus". This article, not unlike its subject, is a moving target and we should revisit this in about 2-4 weeks when the dust has settled. –xeno^talk 12:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse procedural close: xeno has a wise suggestion.--Milowent (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I "third" that. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 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]

• Delete so hard the world spins under it. If this turns out to be a hoax perpetrated to get attention (as I personally suspect), perhaps an article on the hoax will be in order if it becomes a notable one. Otherwise, this was a flash in the pan scare story that nobody will even remember in a month. --NellieBly (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong and obvious delete. What rubbish. This will never be on the news again after next week. Yes, it was amusing, but the kid wasn't even in the damn balloon. What a tragic waste of Wikipedian effort. And if we don't delete it now someone will nominate it again soon and we'll inevitably delete it eventually. • Anakin ^(talk) 13:08, 16 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]

• Keep The people citing
  WP:NOTNEWS need to work on their reading comprehension skills. I guess they're thinking of the sentence "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article," but there was nothing routine about this—it was the front-page story on every major news outlet for the better part of the day, and there will likely be additional developments and follow-up coverage for several days. The point of the notability requirement is to ensure that WP doesn't cover topics that are so obscure or trivial that they won't be properly sourced or reviewed. The huge number of people participating in this AfD suggests this isn't an issue in this case. Binarybits (talk) 13:08, 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. --

•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: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. --Cycl^opia - ^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]

• KEEP - To show the world just how stupid people can get! - the should be kept - to stant testimony to stupidity. Doesn't deserve glorification - but at the same time should be kept, simply because of the airtime it got on CNN etc. - Jonathanvarunbenjamin (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've seen the Wikinews article and it's nowhere as detailed as the WP article, and has no inline footnoting. If we choose to redirect, a redirect without a transwiki would lose a lot of content. But I beleive there's some issues with Wikinews using a different open-source license that makes it difficult to transwiki. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP While it's true that
  WP:NOTNEWS fanatics should go delete those "news articles". Sheesh. On Twitter the Falcon's story dominated trending topics for the entire day. The pope never made a blip on the radar. You can't dispute the notoriety that millions of people were concerned with the subject. --75.34.181.114 (talk) 14:11, 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

•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]

• Keep subject to the strong caveat that the article 'go meta' and pay attention to the man behind the curtain - namely, what this incident says about the quality of cable news in the United States in 2009. Bigturtle (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Possible publicity stunt and if not it is a big, fat nothing. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)changing to Procedural Close. The balloon incident is leading off CNN today as well, which undercuts my initial view of this. I agree with Xeno that this AfD should be closed for a couple of weeks and revisited at that time.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 02:07, 17 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]

• Strong Keep. This is notable event that attracted international attention! -- Evans1982 (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now and consider refocusing further down the line. This isn't the first time the Heene Family's chaotic parenting has attracted media attention and now the balloon nonsense has calmed down a bit this is the major angle that is emerging. This suggests the story has more longevity than a simple "boy gets trapped in balloon (oh no he didn't)" would have and (stunt or not) could easily be used to leverage more media attention for their ideas. So there is the distinct possibility this story will develop and mature over time (and will need the focus changing to the family and not just the balloon incident) but we won't know this for a while, so I'd suggest we return to this question in 6 months time). (Emperor (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep Be serious people. This garnered major nationwide attention. Just because the boy wasn't in the balloon, or may have been a publicity stunt, doesn't mean it ain't notable. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep It does not matter if one's personal opinion is that this is "silly" or "will be forgotten in a week." Wikipedia is the most extensive source of data and information in the World. This event was newsworthy, noteworthy, and garnered worldwide attention. There are many, many articles on Wikipedia about long-forgotten events and people - but that does not mean that we should remove them from the database. Like it or not, this is now part of history - indeed, a very small and insignificant slice of history - but it should certainly be documented and preserved on Wikipedia. Danflave (talk) 15:12, 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]

• Strong delete Wikipedia is not a source for trivia or "one off" news events with no clear notable factor. There would be a case IF the young lad had been (God forfend) killed in an accident, but this entire article is, as far as I can see, "Minor TV personality involved in balloon-related curiosity. Boy feared injured. Boy found. End of story". There is NO notable reason why this story is featured on Wikipedia. 80.193.130.5 (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Any event that creates such a stir is worthy of some mention. This non-news actually overloaded twitter, according to some users. Needs some de-lousing though, e.g., "unlikely to have practical use" is clearly a statement of opinion, no matter how truly unlikely the practical use might be. Hogwaump
• Delete Per
  Wrong Way Corrigan who flew "accidentally" from New York to Ireland in 1938 and told authorities he had intended to fly to California, then an article can be created detailing the made-for-TV movies, books, new laws, or societal effects beyond being literally an "OOH SHINY!!! distractor or stunt which captivated CNN for 2 hours when they could have been discussing war, politics, the economy, or swine flu. Edison (talk) 15:39, 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? --

•wicke 15:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment on what makes it into the news: Well I've already said "delete" to this one but I'm looking forward to the article and subsequent AfD on the
  •wicke 15:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - Too much has been said already. --Torsodog^Talk 16:19, 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? --Torsodog^Talk 17:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't see why
  Gary Brolsma, who all became notable simply for making a viral video. Tampabay721 (talk) 16:54, 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? --

•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]

• Keep for now and discuss at article talk. Notability can change; I suggest an ongoing discussion to monitor the incident's notability. If six-ish months from now the incident has dropped off of news coverage, then we can discuss then what to do with this article. (I'm betting Zm 2 on transwiki'ing to Wikimedia.) --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Whether the incident proves to be an elaborate hoax or a genuine accident, it will remain notable as a cultural moment, a case study of the dangers and ironies of the 24-hour news cycle/spectacle-driven mass media age in which we live. Future scholarship on the subject is virtually certain; for now, news accounts provide ample reliable sources for an article to exist. Xoloz (talk) 17:07, 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]

• Delete Boy loses balloon and hides in attic is not a notable story past this one incident, without any prospect for continuing coverage beyond one day's worth of cable news hype that would justify retention. Alansohn (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How is this notable story different from other notable news events - Like the North Hollywood Shootout? - which by the way has a page on Wikipedia. To me this story indicates a need for more supervision over hot air or helium balloons used for human flight. Also, how do we know this won't inspire a movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.224.164 (talk) 17:27, 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]

• Keep It might be just a flash in the pan story, but it's a flash in the pan story which has made the world headlines. It's a notable event as I see it. DB 103245 ^talk 17:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia might as well be called US-pedia. A non-event gets an article, but the
  Vanessa George child abuse case (front page news in the UK the past few weeks) has no article whatsoever. 91.85.186.195 (talk) 17:57, 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--UltraMagnus^speak 18:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as this is obviously a publicity stunt by a family who's already had Reality TV show appearances. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I'm just all amused by the U.S. centric bias arguments. And the "nothing happened" argument. So, U.S. + nothing happened =
  this? Anyway, carry on. Or ignore this. –Howard the Duck 18:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Verifiable, meets notability guidelines through wide media coverage, and, as others have pointed out, we have a page (a pretty good one, actually) for
  Larry Walters. The panicked haste to remove this article now is as silly as the panicked haste to add it in the first place. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. Had I not already commented, I'd be inclined to close the debate as No Consensus. We all have strong opinions on
  WP:N (Look at the coverage, subject is notable). But I see the debate now inching away from the merits of the article and into areas of policy, which is properly discussed elsewhere. We need to look at this article, which is still in flux, to determine what the best course is, and I don't know that this debate can really find a consensus to keep or delete in this already 85k worth of discussion. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong delete per
  WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments from the keep side. Kid sets off a balloon and hides in the attic, the country apeshit for no apparent reason. This is a flash in the pan, and the kid would have to live with it the rest of his life, besides the rest of the family. Has the potential to cause widespread embarassment for an event that has marginal notability. Seems like a classic BLP1E deletion candidate. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Switching to Keep, will give rationale below. The Wordsmith^Communicate 04:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 Wordsmith^Communicate 19:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• it is either a unique hoax or a unique mistake and at one point a very unique boy-fallen-down-the-well case. either way intense media coverage and national headlines that aren't going away. this screams of that case on the east coast where some black girl claimed to have been raped and kidnapped by a white guy to get away with having ran off from strict parents to go party76.102.103.253 (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:BLP1E. Wordsmith, Alansohn, and further up Xenon and Candlewicke make some useful observations, and I agree with the proposal by the nominator. We should not cover every hoax, local story or media beat-up as a topic. Orderinchaos 19:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong delete per
  WP:NOTNEWS. This incident, while popular amongst the media, is not significant whatsoever. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong keep. Worldwide media event. The whole news media virtually shut down for the day to cover this. 69.90.49.144 (talk) 19:22, 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]

• Meta-comment We need to work out community norms on what should happen when news stories meet regular notability standards. I'm a little tired of seeing this exact same NOTNEWS/NOTABLE debate happen every single fucking time these events get written up.
  barbarian  19:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I agree, I'm going to start hashing something out in my userspace. The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep From reading the above debate, it seems that the motivation for many of the delete votes is "I am annoyed at the news media for covering topics I do not find important". Whether or not an event is worthy of an encyclopedia article can't be determined on the basis of subjective perception that something is frivolous or was given undue attention. It isn't our role to determine that "the media made too much out of a dumb hoax". It may be my personal opinion, for instance, that professional athletics is basically trivial and given undue media attention, but I'm not going to start nominating all the sporting event articles for deletion on that basis. In addition, many, many people value Wikipedia for being current and up-to-date. This is not the same as making the encyclopedia into a newspaper. Ben Kidwell (talk) 19:32, 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]

• Strong delete per nom and
  WP:NOTNEWS.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Absolutely nothing remarkable happened and there is no need for an article covering this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beedubaya (talk • contribs) 20:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as
  WP:NOT#NEWS. Seriously, this is just a bright flash in the pan. Eusebeus (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Strong Keep When you take into account that this was probably a hoax all shit is going to break loose sometime in the future.
  talk) 21:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete I reckon that the momentary publicity is one thing, the general notability is another.
  النقاش ‎ 22:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, Can we stop with the hypocrisy ? Some editors here like to feel superior and elite, "oh we are building a serious encyclopedia here..". This article is one of the reason people read Wikipedia along with Lady Gaga, articles about the Simpsons, Joe the plumber, the Bush shoe incident, and hundreds of tropical storms that nobody knew about.... Seriously, there is enough media coverage from the New York times to LA Times to feed several unreferenced articles in this project 1 . Yes, probably nothing remarkable happened here, it just a reflection of what american society seems to find notable nowadays. --Jmundo (talk) 22:34, 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

]

• Strong keep. This incident has generated more than enough international attention and media coverage to be considered noteworthy, irrespective of what happens now. In fact, speculation that this is a hoax only appears to be fueling increasing amounts of international coverage and interest. Whether this was a genuine emergency or a publicity stunt, it's a highly notable event with massive amounts of documentation from countless reliable sources. As others have noted, it isn't our place to decide whether the media coverage and public fascination are warranted; subjective analysis of whether organizations should report this story or people should care about it is irrelevant —
  David Levy 22:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)/00:13, 17 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

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

]

• Keep – the fact that this was not routine news coverage and the fact that this is starting to look like instant classic (see ESPN Classic) stuff push me towards favoring keeping here. MuZemike 22:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an alternative, we could merge to
    Lawn Chair Larry *lulz* MuZemike 22:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment - See also WP:Articles for deletion/Heene ballon (sic) incident. TJRC (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I've speedily closed that listing due to its obvious redundancy. —

  David Levy 23:44, 16 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]

• DELETEAs the points have already been made this topic is not notable as per wikipedia guidelines. Something is notable not because it's on CNN today. It's notable in and of itself. This story is not there yet. We don't even really know what it is. All of what's out there is media speculation, insintuation, and inuendo. Even if those sources are generally reliable, they really are just trying to keep an alternative story (alternative to boring senators talking about healthcare) going for a news cycle. In three days it'll be something else. Case in point... does anyone know the disposition of the Rifqa Barry case... that was the last vitlly important flavor of the month which is no one cares about any more. Come on, Wikipedia is not a complilation of all the up to date media hype, spin, and speculation, which is all this article is.

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

• Delete - blatant case of
  WP:BLP1E. We shouldn't have an article on every brief story that occupies the news cycle for a few hours, especially when they involve non-notable people, and especially when there essentially is no story. Robofish (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • David Levy 00:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Strong Delete - No encyclopedic value. Pure Wikipollution! --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep while normally I'd go for delete, in this case there is potential for this story to become a touchstone for many issues: not least media gullibility and the lack of critical thinking - if only because in involves a small kid and a bright silver balloon. It'd be a shame to throw away all the good work and referencing currently being done while it's easy (because it's current). I suggest relisting for deletion in a couple of months - if no-one cares (ie: it has been just a flash-in-the-pan event with no cultural resonance) then the article will be disposed of quietly and without sorrow at that time.--
  Jaymax (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I agree. We are the most dynamic and well-known Internet encyclopedia thus far. We should be able to change in order to reflect current popular demand for coverage. And don't cite

  WP:CRYSTAL, because that can work both ways. --Delta1989 (talk) 00:11, 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

David Levy 16:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Strong delete. I don't want to repeat arguments here but, this is pure
  news, not encyclopedic, recentism, etc etc. In a year will people be googling to look for this incident? No. Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Strong keep. Although the family said that he was not in the balloon during Wolf Blitzer's interview, it's still noteworthy nonetheless. Made the Twitter trending topics for a while, and might still be noteworthy weeks after. ConCompS (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might? --

•wicke 03:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - Recentism. Crafty (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaymax (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Sez you. Nevertheless to forestall the inevitable shitstorm I also add

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.

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

]

• Strong delete. I feel there is no reason for this page. It's just current news, not somethings notable enough for an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.86.105 (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Why do some people want to delete everything? Go find something useful to do.Heathcliff (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nobody will remember this in a week. Also, we are not ED. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 03:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is a notable event. there is a lot of misinformation out there. this article allows for the incident to be recorded with a NPOV. It doesn't matter what people will think or do a year from now. That is not our measurement. this event is notable. Kingturtle (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is a notable event right now. If in a week's time, everyone has forgotten about it, then we can delete the article (or more likely merge it into another article) and nobody will complain. If, on the other hand, it's still getting news coverage a week from now and being discussed in more places, then the article will probably have grown and become considerably more encyclopedic. Is there any harm in keeping it around without an AfD tag for a frickin' week? --Dlugar (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this it not a notable event at all. It was the "news of the day" and completely fails
  talk · contribs) 05:15, 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

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

]

• (
  =/\= | 05:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I already !voted "delete" above per BLP concerns among other reasons, but it seems like it might have been a hoax now. My !vote still stands, but I really, really wish
  WP:DENY applied to BLP subjects. Would end this in a hurry. The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete.
  talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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

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

]

• Delete Fails
  ∞ 12:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please elaborate. How does this subject fail

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

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

]

• Strong Keep - well documented, verifiable event with ample reliable sources. Most of the comments requesting deletion are focused on
  WP:NOT#News which is more of a guideline, not a strict policy. I think there's a lot of indication that is simply not *just* news, and on balance, this is a good article that ought to be the example for others. Tarinth (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• CommentIf anyone's interested in an encyclopedia for current events, may I suggest Mahalo? [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.144.136 (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete After watching the Wolf Blitzer interview I realized the entire event was staged for publicity. Wikipedia is not the place for this! Adding it is like feeding fuel to this fire.--Windowasher (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a violation of

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

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.--

talk) 14:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Must delete For two reasons: (1) I don't care to read this entry, and (2) I don't like the family. (Note: this is a sarcastic post.) 74.241.105.140 (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Please don't be sarcastic, we're trying to have a serious and civil discussion. Plus, if votes are counted, yours will be marked as delete, not sarcastic keep. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 16:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE or MARK AS HOAX Prefer delete, but weak keep if the article is marked as a hoax Sanguis Sanies (talk) 15:32, 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]

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Notability, the article should indicate that it was a hoax. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Just because this is a current, newsworthy event covered at Wikinews doesn't mean that it can't also be notable enough to warrant an article here. Is this the invasion of Iraq? No, of course not. But it is an event that captured international attention, that has reliable sources covering it, and that easily meets the criteria for notability. Ithizar (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It has (just) enough significance. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question for deletionists Why delete this article? Please note that I do not find linkage to [[WP:[fill in your blank here]]] to be persuasive. Can anyone articulate a compelling reason why to delete? I fundamentally do not understand the desire to delete this; but, I am open to the possibility that my thought process has overlooked something. 129.81.40.250 (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC) .[reply]
  • Basically, it's like this:
    • People here are confusing notability for importance. The subject of this article is in no way important. Its notability, on the other hand, seems to cross the threshold for
      WP:N
      for now. I know there's this essay/policy/guideline/whatever that "notability is not temporary", meaning that if it's notable in 2009, it doesn't matter if it'll be notable in 3009 since it was notable in 2009, meaning that it was notable, perhaps it could boil down to "lasting notability" or something similar to that. It can be said that the subject of this article is silly. Which brings me to...
    • About the BLP1E, honestly, I know what BLP is, I dunno what "1E" is (probably a code for what section of the essay/policy/guideline/whatever it is), but you can't invoke any BLP concern here. It's like saying, you'd have to delete the Zidane article since it will be a personal attack against him if I cite what he did to Materazzi on the 2006 FIFA World Cup Final, which brings me to...
    • Nothing happened. It's a gross oversimplification of what happened. Noticed I used "what happened" which probably meant that something happened. It's like saying, (I'm repeating myself here, see my earlier comment) nothing happened at the
      1994 FIFA World Cup Final (or the 2002 Major League Baseball All-Star Game
      ). Which brings me to...
    • U.S. bias. Yes, even in deletion discussions this crops up. Since no article was made for some random missing kid in Vanuatu who didn't ride a balloon, which turned out he wasn't riding the balloon anyway, this article should be deleted.
    • Which all boils down to
      WP:CRYSTAL, both ways actually. Either "this is not notable in a week's time", or "this is notable when my grandkids die". So perhaps I should say we should defer the decision at least 3 months after. This is what I said on the Zoey Zane
      case (which probably needs a revisit if anyone wants to pursue it) and it also applies here.
  • –Howard the Duck 17:26, 17 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]

• Strong delete, no indications of any notability, this is just a stupid hoax and a concern for the child protection agency. As said before,
  Wikipedia is not news and this is an encyclopedia, not the place to promote some ridiculous publicity stunt. Urban XII (talk) 18:06, 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

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

]

• Delete
  WP:RECENTISM, It's not even an issue of WP : NOT NEWS, this story is not news in itself. --Shuki (talk) 22:34, 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

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]

• Strong keep. It's obvious that the fact that this discussion is so long, and how many spoofs there are of this incident, that this incident meets wikipedia's notability requirements. Ch kisama (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 3

• Delete
  Verifiability != notability. Slow down and think of what the story is here folks: kid hides in attic while balloon flies away. The end. This is not an encyclopedic subject. Steven Walling 18:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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,

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

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

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

]

• Keep, regrettably. While the arguments for and against deletion are all valid, the fact of the matter is, the event has generated enough controversy, speculation, and theorizing to make it notable. If anything, 300 years from now, psychologists will use it as a fine example of personality disorders. It certainly would have been notable had the event been legitimate and the boy been in the balloon. So the fact that these people went to such great lengths in fabricating it is equally so. We can only hope their come-uppance is just as noteworthy. --K10wnsta (talk) 22:47, 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]

• Keep I saw this, and read random posts, and some of us seem to have confused
  WP:NOTNEWS
  with [[WP:ANEVENTISCOVEREDINTHENEWSTHEREFOREITCANNOTBEINCLUDEDINWIKIPEDIASOWEMUSTDELETEIMMEDIATLYDESPITETHEFACTTHATTHISWASCOVEREDBY

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]

• Delete If the child was in the balloon, then perhaps it newsworthy, but should we have an article for every child who hides in the attic?Jojhutton (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but we should have an article for every instance that results in jetliners being diverted, an international airport being shut down, military helicopters being deployed, and millions of people around the world looking on as a scandal erupts on top of that. —
    David Levy 00:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The problem with these delete votes is that they want us to pick apart the topic and say: "it's just a kid doing something stupid", "it's just a hoax", or whatever. But the details of the situation shouldn't factor into this at all. If the military had shot down the balloon with the kid inside of it, and the whole thing received the same level of attention that the actual, less dramatic events received, then the level of notability would be exactly the same. Notability should be based on the external impact, reception, and generally attributed importance of an event, not on whether particular attributes of the event have some kind of inherent notability (or inherent non-notability). Everyking (talk) 00:48, 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]

• Keep. el oh el.--69.114.165.104 (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wow - 173kb and still arguing over this??? DB 103245 ^talk 02:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I copied this onto a word document: 46 pages in 11 point font. 23,638 words. 449 paragraphs. How much longer can this discussion last? Reaching consensus will be nearly impossible. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 02:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think we have a new Wikipedia record for longest AfD debate ever! ConCompS (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just can't work out why, if the event was such a 'non-event', some people seem to be getting so worked up! At te end of the day, if it were to be deleted, it would only end up being recreated, deleted, recreated ad nauseum for the foreseeable future (I'm well aware that that statement probably violates
        WP:CRYSTAL - sue me). As my mother once said - 'better the devil you know'. DB 103245 ^talk 02:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Keep Wikipedia's goal is to provide information about all topics in an encyclopedic format, regardless of importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.56.129 (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is becoming more than a human interest story -- criminal charges, possible hoax? The media attention and international coverage is enough to warrant keeping the article, and the details of the story haven't even unraveled yet. 75.69.179.131 (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  talk) 02:53, 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]

• Snowball no consensus unless admins want to keep this open to see how long this can go on for. Big Way (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It seems that all of the "delete" arguments are actually arguments that the incident should not have been covered by the media, and would be better addressed to the media. Perhaps these editors can successfully convince the media to create a time machine and use it to prevent themselves from covering the story. In the meantime, the incident, its coverage, the apparently ensuing arrests, and the coverage of the ensuing arrests, make the incident clearly notable. Maxamegalon2000 03:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Seems to me it doesn't have any long term effect. Qajar (talk) 03:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep
  Jessica McClure is a strong precedent, as are the Hitler Diaries, Clifford Irving's fake autobiography of Howard Hughes and Piltdown Man. Okay, maybe not that last one, but still. If everyone in the United States knows about it, even if it's dumb/stupid/annoying, then that makes it NOTABLE! --Rajah (talk) 03:40, 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]

• Not
  outside of news agencies, no –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:24, 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? –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
  ]

• Keep! The parents are going to be charged with a crime. The Balloon Boy Hoax is a part of history! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.59.49 (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Keep I struck my delete vote above (under section break 2), and will now give the reason. Since the parents are being charged with a crime, this article falls under
  Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts), for which it meets the requirements for inclusion. I still think biographical information for the parents and especially the kid needs to be limited, but there should be an article according to this guideline. The Wordsmith^Communicate 04:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep for the moment. Here's why: in the first place, I wouldn't have created this article to begin with. It was an afternoon's news event, and didn't look like it was going to be that important (even if the kid died) - hell, the whole thing lasted barely five hours. I would have argued, let it be for a bit and see if it's still being talked about in a week or two, then create the article. As it's here, and the story is still developing, I say keep it for now; revisit the issue in two or three weeks (a month, perhaps?) and have a proper deletion discussion then. Right now it's just too hard to tell what sort of long-term importance this might have. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break #4

• Comment.
  UA 05:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep. Two and a half days later, it's still the number one topic on Google News. If that isn't notability (in the regular, non-Wikipedia, sense), I don't know what is. If this turns out to be an ephemeral event that no one remembers in a few months' time, it can be revisited then, but per
  WP:CRYSTAL we should not jump the gun. Grover cleveland (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, but maybe give it a better article name. The fact that this event even is being covered is evidence of the decline of western civilization -- which is a notable event.  :) HyperCapitalist (talk) 05:33, 18 October 2009 (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.