Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JetBlue Flight 1052

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 keep. This was always going to be a controversial one, following the DRV! However, the consensus appears to be just that the article should be kept. However, this is without prejudice against a renomination in a short while (I'm thinking a couple of weeks or so, rather than a couple of days!) if someone believes that the coverage during that period does not justify this being counted as notable as Wikipedia defines it. I would also recommend that this article be renamed to a more useful name: JetBlue are still using Flight 1052 (see tomorrow's flight details for JetBlue Flight 1052) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JetBlue Flight 1052

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

I have closed the

JetBlue Flight 1052 and relist on AfD." Please re-evaluate this article, now as a page about the event. I have not changed anything in the article, so if it is kept please rewrite it to reflect the event. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

It was closed as a redirect to this page.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't there an archieved record of that discussion? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See where it says at the top "I have closed the DRV"? Click "DRV." Propaniac (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is vastly more information here that is of interest to readers, and whose inclusion in the
JetBlue Airways article would cause undue weight problems. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • The title of the article is in accordance with
    WP:AVIMOS. Mjroots (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Nothing wrong with the MOS, it's just a reflection of the fact that the article is a vehicle to avoid BLP1E for what could easily be covered in the JetBlue incidents section. GainLine ♠ ♥ 10:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on NOT#NEWS "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. " Is this enduring? At the moment it seems to be. Certainly more so that many many other things we cover. Is this routine coverage? I'd have to say there was nothing routine about either the event or the coverage. So I'm really not seeing how NOT#NEWS applies. It is more targeted to things like box scores and who is dating who kins of things ("routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities"). Not things that see this level of sustained coverage. Hobit (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, well, more like a request. I read "recent coverage, lasting coverage" but I haven't heard a thing from MSM about this for almost a week. Does someone have a reliable source that is still discussing the event? I don't mean the Examiner gossiping about a reality show, or Forbes talking about how to keep your employees from blowing their cool. I'm asking for real, reliable coverage of the incident. I'm not even sure I would consider news of the court case relevant because that is guaranteed to go on for years simply because of our justice system. Where is all this recent coverage of the event? Padillah (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair question. At the moment I'm seeing news coverage as recently as 4 hours ago. [2]. Some examples in the last 24 are: [3], [4], and [5] each of which reference the event in one way or the other. An www.examiner.com article discusses the reality show offer and [6] references the GOP ad. All told I'm seeing 17 stories in the last 24 hours. Hobit (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, the first link was a google news search for "Steven Slater" not an article. The second story starts with the phrase "As flight attendant Steven Slater slips into a media lull between his dramatic exit and a rumoured reality show..." even the articles you are citing are talking about how there's no more media coverage. The third link is to a story about several people quitting there jobs in rather dramatic ways. I personally think this is evidence of how non-notable this incident is - Everyone is doing it. The fourth link is to a news article about something else. I.e. "In what might be a move more courageous than folk-hero Steven Slater, she took matters into her own hands..." Yet more examples of other people doing the same thing as, or in this case better than, Slater. And the fifth link actually calls Slater "Pop Culture". The title of the article is "6 campaign ads that spoof pop culture" How does being explicitly labeled as Pop Culture mean the incident has staying power? These links in no way "cover" the incident. And if these are the best you could find out of the 17 you purport to have encountered in the last 17 hours, then I'm less than impressed. The Smiley face murder theory is from early 2008 and you can still find articles and papers written directly on the investigation. That's notable. Padillah (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it means that we're well past "routine news coverage" as spelled out in WP:NOTNEWS. What is "sustained coverage" these days? To me it means that there is on-going coverage, even if just mentions, over a period of at least 4-6 weeks. Do we have that? Not yet, not enough time. But if there are 17 articles published in the last 24 hours I think we're likely to get there. And yeah, being in so strong in "Pop Culture" that a major party makes an ad based on you probably means that it's notable and worthy of an article. Hobit (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Still of evidance of any kind of lasting impact. News stories appear to have largley tried up. This can be coverd (and the material in the articel only repeats) whats in the jetblue artciel already.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 17 stories in the last 24 hours is "dried up?". That's a pretty high bar and I doubt that even 5% of our articles ever had coverage like that. Hobit (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many of which are trivil in the extream (a one line mention in an artciel about another persons heroism, who interestingly does not have a wik page) they are not about him, they are about other incidents (or persons) and just mention him. Or he is mentioned in things like college newpapers. What we would need in notable coverage to establish this is more then a silly season story.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're saying that every event worthy of a Wikipedia article must be covered in the media, in detail, constantly and in perpetuity, whether or not anything new related to the event has actually happened, that's ridiculous and I doubt any event could possibly meet such a standard. Becoming an ongoing point of reference, on the other hand, is absolutely evidence of notability. Propaniac (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not in deatil but it hato be rather more then saying that A is not as heroic a B. It has top be more then a throw away referance. That the point its one event th had any impact. Its not changed anything. Its being discused soely in relatio to hte one incident. Thats the ppoint he is famous for one (minor) incident. Where is the anyliisis of the incident? In factg the majority of coverage is about hijm, not the incidetn. The incidetn seem secondry. So he is notable for being part of an event that he is more notable then.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article should refeclt the whole story, not just give Mr Slaters version nof the evetn (which has been widley challenged) any thijng else would be haigiograthy. We should not have tribute pages. Now all material (apart from Mr Slaters version) is unimportant fluff. What is the point of this artciel if its not about the event, and everthing surrounding it? All versions of the event, not just his.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Propaniac and Hobit, the article needs to be about the subject, not just mention it. Heck one of the links above mentions the Old Spice Guy, does that mean he's notable? No. The [article on MSNBC] might but the off the cuff mention of his being spoofed does not qualify as coverage. Padillah (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need articles that are about the subject in order to establish notability. But, I repeat that it is ridiculous to assert that for an event to be notable enough to justify an article, you need continual detailed coverage until the end of time. The fact that new developments become less frequent after a period of time, and that the media does not continue writing new articles when there are no new developments, does not mean that the event wasn't notable. What you can expect from a notable event is that it is still referenced in the public consciousness. I doubt there have been any recent articles about anything in Category:2009 controversies, let alone events from years before that; that does not mean that the Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy, or any other item in that category, does not justify an article. Propaniac (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Old Spice Guy ads are certainly notable. Their coverage has been as broad and wide as one could hope and many folks in advertising have claimed that they are the first major ad campaign to be truly successful in utilizing "new media". But ignoring that, does prompting a study on air travel count as "significant impact"? If so [7] would certainly be one. I really don't get why people have a fear of documenting truly significant events just because they are "pop culture". We cover all sorts of things that have less of a reach than this. A majority of flying Americans have closely followed this story for goodness sake (see previous study). That's a lot of folks to "closely" follow anything. Hobit (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum The Old Spice Ad stuff has its own article.... The Man Your Man Could Smell Like... Hobit (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SIgnificant, where is the in depth anaylysis? All we have are articels about the man. There is almost no initerviews with passengers (the other witnases) where is the anyalysis of the effects using the chute might have had (there is a bit, but no follow ups). Where is the analysis of Jetblues actions (and there has been some questions raised, and largley ignored). It is clear from the coverage that there is no notability about the event, its all about the person. Indead even the fact that allmost all (90%) of the witneses contradict all or part of his story has been largely ignored in the coverage. There has been no indepth coverage of the event, just a publicity machine kicking in to present his side of the story only.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of analysis about the reactions to this event. Lots and lots and lots including prompting a fairly large study. I think that's pretty solid. Hobit (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endagering life, how where is the analysis of how his actions might have endagerd life? Apparently it put the airplane out of action, for how long, why, what impact did this have on the airline, on the aiurport, were any flights delayed, how did this affect the profits of already financialy weakend airlines? Why did Jetbue wait so lon g to inform teh authorities and why were not so unco-operative? You are right we have lots avbout the reaction to the event, nothing about the event. There are huge anansered questions, the reason, becasue this was an 'and finaly' human interest story that was never intended (except by those who alerted the press before the police) then 15 minutes of fame. Moreover your indepth sutdy is not indepth about the incident.Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As can clearly be seen by a Google search for the past day, there is still continuing coverage, so it was not really a "15 minutes of fame" scenario. I also believe that this news article sums things up appropriately. SilverserenC 03:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Fails
    WP:SENSATION. While this event gained coverage during its news cycle, it is hardly encyclopedic as an event that will have long-term memory or effect. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • KEEP and move to Steven Slater
    • Notability for sport and athletic individuals requires only one event
      Kateryna Kozlova
      then Wikipedia brings itself into disrepute as a source of information if it does not cover an individual whose story was followed in August 2010 by over half the US population.
    • Steven Slater notability goes beyond the events on JetBlue Flight 1052 as he and his story has become a
      Take this job and shove it
      story about human experience not a notable air incident.
    • The Steven Slater story has been raised in diverse contexts including customer relations[12] industrial relations[13] employment termination[14] and status of workers in a recession.[15] This media coverage is on going and given these issues are permanent important concerns are unlikely to stop. Given the dramaticness and notoriety of the Steven Slater story it can reasonably expected to be adopted as an instruction related talking point in education and training in these fields.
    • Steven Slater is a social phenomena with a dozen plus songs[16] political ad[17] folkhero status[18] and creation of a new word in the English language.[19] A common explanation of his notability is that it resonates with conditions faced by workers in a recession.[20][21][22][23]
    • Failure to include Steven Slater as an article is a judgment about these worker experiences --that they are insufficient grounds for noteworthiness in an encylopedia. This goes against
      WP:N
      .
    • Most of the above deletes seem to reflect -- and I apologize for making this observation and only make it because I think it is at the core of this debate-- a focus on the physical events on JetBlue Flight 1052, while being indifferent to the enormous, empathic, in depth and diverse social attention given to them as a noteworthy human story.--LittleHow (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The story is not followed by half the population of the US (for a start how many people in the US fly?) its is followed by 330 odd people (who fly, not unreasonable givine its a flying incident).
We cannot specualte on why might have been, but I would say that if this had not been on an airliner (but had say been in a call centre) no one would have given a hoot. Moreover as the press and internt were informed first there is also the issue of whether or not this would have been as notable if he had been arrested before his side of the story got out wouold he have been suchg a hero (there is also now the srong possiiblity that his whole story is a concoction).
The media coverage is just that, it does not establish any lasting impact (and in fact the incident itself and the questions it raises have been largley ignored, he is the story not what he did). Also much of your civerage is a week old, aroung the time of the incident. We also cannot say at this time what hte impact will be, but given the increasing evidacen that this was not a story about a worker pushed too far its doubtfull if this will be used as anything. The industry I ssupect will soon try to move on.
Songs and other pop culture referances do not establish ntability (and again this all looks like fairly old stuff), its a nwes story so it will have had some millage that does not mean its notable. Also we still have the fact that this refects peoples reaction to the first flurry of news (and still contains no real analysis of the actual incident but is mealry a personel interest story) not any iindepth analysis of the incodetn and its impact.
Sorry but non inclusion does not violate nuetraility. Especlaiy as mu8ch of the above is based on a biased and now almost certaionly dishonest version of events (inclusion of that would violate nuetraility).
To be notable a person must be part of a notable event, if the event is not notable (and it appears tp have been largley ignored) the he is not. If I stub my toe and it gets news coverage that does not make me t of a notable event.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of WP:N is that coverage is notability. That is, it was noted. This clearly meets the requirements of WP:N in much the same way the sun meets the requirements of "a hot object". The question at hand is if the event is non-the-less something we shouldn't cover because it's "just news" (
WP:JNN. That can be a fine IAR argument, but such arguments are generally accorded less weight than a policy-based argument. Hobit (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
And have I asked has the event (rather then the person) actualy has any analysis, no (and in fact jetblue have complained about the lack of coverage of the danger inherant in the chute incident for example, claiming the incident has not been taken seriously).The coverage has all been infact trivial (even at the time, and has become increasingly trivial as time has gone on) concentrating on the Humans intertest angle at the expense of actual coverage of his actions and thier implications. No the event has not been noticed its been largley ignored (to an extent that some of the coverage has been of the 'I did not see it but know Mr Slaters version is true' veriety).Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial coverage is making an aside in an article otherwise about another subject. There have been entire articles written about the Steven Slater incident and what it signifies. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Hobit (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also if a TV program aired in the US and 200,000 people whatched it would not be a notable program it would be a flop. Yes the inernet (and facebook) has a far bigger 'audiance' then US TV (in the US) yet less then this is considerd notalbe. This is just plain daft facebook has 500 million active users, this is less then 1% of the total.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"200,000 people whatched it would not be a notable program it would be a flop." Source? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We often have these silly debates over whether clearly notable events should get coverage or not. They should, even if they were primarily driven by the actions of one person. The intent behind BLP1E is to protect low profile individuals from being subjected to a full biographical treatment, including the otherwise private parts of their lives. It's not intended to censor all biographical coverage of people primarily (and widely) known for one event, and it never was meant that way. Gigs (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This comment also raises a good issue involving
WP:They just don't like it. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
To those who consider this is not worthy because of claims that there is no fresh news on the issue and it has dried up. Has there been any news on Jesus walking on water today? Shall we delete? AfD
WP:They just don't like it. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, lack of ongoing coverage for a significant period of time in terms of one event articles is actually a part of policy. But, regardless, coverage is still ongoing, so it doesn't really matter. SilverserenC 19:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on coverage ongoing (and voted Keep), but you helped make my real point which is the wikilawyering going on by the delete camp. Reliance on policy read literally. As there is no ongoing news coverage of some guy walking on the sea of Galilee, we should now start an AfD Jesus.
WP:WL is designed to stop such nonsense propositions as AfD Jesus by stressing the import of principle and intent over the literally reading being touted here. It's like an evangelical army... WP Policies are not meant to be read verbatim (and selectively as is the case here). Anyway there is always Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. This article is still here, has had two AfDs, and an appeal, and short of ArbCom enforcing it's godhood you can bet this article is just not going to go away. The People Speak. There will never be consensus to delete, so any admin deleting this article will be relying on policy, to which an editor will probablly respond with Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and create it with another name even more inappropiate than Steven Slater > JetBlue Flight 1052. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Wikipedia is the attentional system of the human species. It the collective source of what will be noteworthy. But it is written by humans and we each live and organize our minds differently: some tightly with a lawyer-like set of rules about what is notable, some with "ignore all the rules" inspiration. One puts logic over chaos, the other diversity and potential richness over order. Wikipedia needs both, and both will always cause tensions.--LittleHow (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's just a news story that will be quickly forgotten, not an encyclopedia-worthy event. Peacock (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I !voted delete in the AfD for Slater's page; while he isn't notable enough for his own entry, this event seems to be. Continuing coverage, lasting effect. The thing as a whole is notable. —fetch·comms 03:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The view from Page view statistics Wikipedia viewers overwhelming seek
    JetBlue Flight 1052 see here. The ratio is usually around one in 400 in favor of Steven Slater. The numbers are so few, that less individuals searched for JetBlue Flight 1052 on August 17 (the last day for which figures exist) than commented on the JetBlue Flight 1052 deletion page for that day. Does Wikipedia exists as an encyclopedia service for people out there in the real world, or for editors lost in their wikilawyering? --LittleHow (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • On the up side, we'll end up with a redirect to this article from his name. Should get the job done. Hobit (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point is that the interest that drives the noteworthiness of Steven Slater lies in him not the incident on JetBlue Flight 1052 which was merely the occasion for his notability.--LittleHow (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is clear from editorials and news articles that this case is no longer news. It is now a notable scenario. All "delete" rationales above hinging on WP:NOTNEWS clearly have no merit. Steven Slater's name is now in the public record. I will find all of the analysis and build it up. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I missed it, did this plane crash? Was it involved in some sort of hijacking incident? Why in God's green Earth is this article titled after the flight number. This is usually reserved for notable flights in which people have died violently. The article is disrespectfully titled.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the current consensus on titling style for aviation events, if the media doesn't give the event a specific name and it is wished for the article to be titled after the event, then the title must be the flight number and company. If you have an alternative title in mind, feel free to propose it. SilverserenC 22:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that was the consensus then, someone must have forgot to add it to the guideline, because that is not what it says.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article also says that his 15 minutes of fame are almost over (essentially not the first source to say that this is in effect a flash in the pan story). Also the article is more about Dave Carrol then Steven Slater. In fact the Steven Slater mention is trivial. It also says that “Still, there was something a little surprising about the adulation. After all, the public comprises customers as well as workers,” Not the first source to question why he is so famous, indication that not everyone considerd the incident impoprtant. And I again say that 200,000 people is not a lot, its less then 1% of face book.
Also BLP1E says If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. He is only notable for the one event, the fact that the one evetn has caused a cord to be srruck with less then 1% of the interents population does not alter the fact he is still only notable for the one event (throwing a wobbly and leaving his job). There is no indication he is famous for anyhing else.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fame does not equal notability nor does The New Yorker piece[24] stating his "fame may be winding down" equal "flash in the pan".
The notability of Steven Slater is the main topic in the leading first paragraph. The statement “Still, there was something a little surprising about the adulation" is statement that he has surprising notability not that he lacks it.
To state "Not the first source to question why he is so famous" is in fact to state he is famous (but to be puzzled about it) not that he lacks fame. The sources of his notability are diverse : it goes far beyond 200,000 people on facebook -- a measure that might be questioned -- as there are 12+ songs about him,[25] the use of his name as a word "to pull a Slater",[26] a political ad based around pulling a slater,[27] a
take this job and shove it
.
WP:BLP1E is misinterpreted. Single events can be proper grounds for notability such as with individuals in sport. BLP1E is to stop articles on low-profile people incidentally involved in events such George Holliday who videotaped Rodney King being beaten by LAPD officers (and whose acquittal lead to the 1992 Los Angeles riots). It is not a grounds to stop articles on people who have become noteworthy by diverse sources and in diverse ways.--LittleHow (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
That was beautiful. *applauds* SilverserenC 15:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/JetBlue_Flight_1052&oldid=1140256267"