- )
This article was deleted in spite of the fact that there was no consensus to delete. Most of the people voting to delete cited WP:BLP1E, but, as others pointed out in the course of the AFD, their arguments were more based on the title of that policy than its full text. The policy itself states that if an event is notable (which this one clearly is) but a person is only notable for that one event, then "it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." So if this were the case then the article should have been moved to an article for this incident. But the policy goes on to state that "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate." And a good number of arguments to this effect were made during the AFD discussion. Finally, in the beginning of the paragraph, it states that "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..." It was argued in the AFD that there is a strong likelihood of continued notability, with offers for book deals, reality tv shows, movies, etc. And just in the past day or so it's been reported that he has in fact been offered a reality show [2]. This article states that he's "Hollywood's most wanted." [3]. A quick browse through recent Google News will reveal other similar articles. Anyway, it boils down to the fact that there was no consensus to delete; there are good arguments based on WP policy to not delete; and those voting to keep did not ignore the policy, rather they looked at the same policy and came to a different conclusion based on the evidence. Therefore, I propose that this deletion be overturned. - Helvetica ( talk) 09:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC) [reply- Endorse - "I don't like the outcome" is not a valid DRV rationale. The closing admin seemed to find the deletes made a stronger case than the keeps. This person is only famous for one event, an event of no lasting significance (man swears up a storm, insults customers, and quits, whoop-de-doo), our drive-by 24/7 infotainment media has a short field day with it, and he's trying to cash in on his 15 mins as quickly as possible. None of this is encyclopedic enough, it is worth a mentino and a rediect to
JetBlue Airways#Incidents and accidents , and that is all. Tarc ( talk) 12:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC) [reply
- Endorse - Helvica says "This article was deleted in spite of the fact that there was no consensus to delete" - thats right , AFD is not a vote. As per Tarc, there are no valid reasons to continue the same claims here at DRV for another week.
Off2riorob ( talk) 13:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC) [reply
- Endorse as within admin discretion. DRV is ot a place for re-argument of the issues but a place (in this instance) to review whether the close was a correct close. Having read the AfD, I read the debate as being somewhere between Delete and No consensus, but I think it could have been closed as Keep, No consensus, or Delete depending on your exact reading of the debate and so any of those closes would have been within admin discretion. Dpmuk (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Endorse -
WP:NOTNEWS. The closing admin made a rationale and informative closing argument on the page. Although it doesn't surprise me at all, that this is here now, all arguments need to stay focused on the close, and not on why the article should be kept.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 14:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC) [reply- Comment - If you look at the AFD itself, you'll see a lot of people on both sides using the word "vote." Maybe it's not technically correct, but what word do you prefer for the one bold "delete" or "keep" or whatever that each editor makes? And if they're all just arguments, then why can't the same user make multiple "keep" or "delete" votes. And why do so many people insist on flagging (non)-votes by IPs or new accounts as having few or no previous edits? And why is the term "consensus" even used when this denotes something larger than a majority in favor of a certain position. It seems pretty clear to me that, in spite of all the claims to the contrary, there is at least a definite element of voting in the AFD process, even if some people don't like to admit that. This isn't particularly surprising, as Wikipedia is an ever-evolving institution, so it's to be expected that certain policies, guidelines, and conventions might contradict one another. -Helvetica (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If an AFD was simply just an up and down vote, then it wouldn't need an experienced editor (in this case an Admin), to close these discussions. Anyone could do it. Administrators are admins because it has been determined that they are knowledgeable enough to follow the basic principles of policy. In most instances, ip or new accounts do not have enough experiance or knowledge to be able to decide whether an article is worth keeping based on policy, and want an article kept because they like it. That is why their comments are sometimes disregarded. Wikipedia is not a fan site. I have no doubt that many fans came to wikipedia to raed the article and saw the banner, and decided to participate in the discussion. That is fine, as long as they are familiar enough with wikipedia policy to make a policy informed decision. Most I am afraid are not.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question(s): If the relevant issue for the deletion is the BLP1E policy, (if the AFD is not over-turned) does anything preclude the creation of an article about the incident itself, which would not be a biography of a living person? (There were a number of people in the AFD who proposed such a solution.) And if this is possible, could the content of the deleted article be temporarily undeleted and moved to a subpage of my user space, so that the whole thing wouldn't have to be re-written from scratch? Thank you. -Helvetica (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, article creation is taken on a case by case basis. If you feel that the event is notable, then a page may and could be created. It most likely will go through the same AFD process, but results differ. I personally feel that there is enough coverage in the redirect to satisfy notability. I would suggest using your time to improve the Jet Blue article where it refers to Slater. If more information comes out or his notability increases, then the Slater page could be recreated.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, so then regarding my second question, how do I request the temporary restoration of the article's content (either in my user space or in some user or article or project sub-space, such as the Rescue Squadron), such that relevant writing and sourcing can be incorporated in another article? As far as a future AFD process, that might happen, but it's my understanding that both most of the delete (non)-"votes" and the ruling by the closing admin dealt with the policy BLP1E, so this would not apply to a non-biographical article. Helvetica (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Its a flash in the pan. A brief mention in the airline's article is enough. ]
- Thanks for your opinion. If somebody would like to answer my question then that would be appreciated. Thank you :-) -Helvetica (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
talk 20:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC) [reply
- Gee Spartaz, where did you get the shiny crystal ball?Edison (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - The opener of this DRV has now started to notify other users that vote commented to keep and has also notified the Article Rescue Squadron of the DRV.
Off2riorob ( talk) 14:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC) [reply- For the record the "canvassing" allegation is about me notifying just one user about this review. -Helvetica (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record the note to ARS was also canvassing as it was non-neutral but don't let facts get in the way. ]
- I have removed the canvassing. ]
- Endorse I have been following this closely and the keep arguments are all around notability and GNG which are subordinate to BLP1E. There was a defence put forward that this was an especially notable person totranscend BLP1E like, for example, Joe the Plumber. That argument is, however, utter rubbish because Joe was on the news worldwide - I even heard of him in Denmark - and was a defining moment in one of the most significant elections there has been a long long while. And Steven Slater? He is a bloke that got drunk and made a fool of himself. BLP1E most certainly applies and this was the correct close. ]
- Endorse --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you brought up Joe the Plumber and the national stage it should be noted that today the Republican National Committee is evoking Slater in a television campaign. As numerous people have said this was matter was closed prematurely. He's still in the news and the stakes seem to keep rising. The argument that this person/event will not be notable in the future is crystal ball gazing when there is no evidence of its coverage diminishing. The decision should be overturned. If people want to revisit it in the future. They can.Americasroof (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn There was obviously no consensus and the closer failed to follow the guidance of
WP:DGFA by not respecting the policy-based arguments of the numerous experienced editors who wished to keep the article. In such cases of reasonable doubt, the guideline emphatically states that articles should be kept rather than deleted. Colonel Warden ( talk) 15:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC) [reply- DGFA isn't policy. CONSENSUS is and requires admins to measure arguments against policy. We have a hierarchy and admins rightly discount arguments based on guidelines if they are trumped by arguments based on policy. That's what happened here. ]
- Endorse --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Good call on Mkativerata's part. Horologium (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn The summing up ignored arguments made by me and Helvetica that this had the notability of "a proverb lighting rod". Until Steven Slater, the frustrations (and discussions about them) of workers in the airline and other industries in this recession lacked a dramatic incident to "hang themselves upon". Such notability is not trivial. Due this kind of notability, this individual and incident will figure prominently in course discussions in the coming academic year on industrial /labor relations, sociology of work, and the economic effects of recession upon Americans. Deletion creates the serious risk that students seeking information about this individual will not find it where they expect reliable information--Wikipedia-- and as a result will be forced to turn to less objective sources. One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is "Ignore all rules". The WP:BLP1E rule was created to avoid problems in regard to temporarily newsworthy but quickly forgotten individuals. It is being applied here bureaucratically. --LittleHow (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to base most of your reasoning on things that will happen. Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball and if things are going to happen in the future, then let them happen. Until then this is still only One event.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There were just as many people who were using their crystal balls to state emphatically that this guy wouldn't remain in the headlines for more than a day or two, and that the article should be deleted because of that. Why weren't they called out on their crystal ball usage? Why were their
votes arguments given more weight than the folks who said we should wait and see what happens with this guy? –BMRR (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it would matter either way. It was closed on the merits of what the subject has done now, not in the future. As the closing admin didn't use any of this as a reason for deletion, it would be moot to continue discussing it.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a crystal ball gazing to note that this guy and his actions will be discussed in the Fall in colleges and universities in courses on industrial relations, the sociology of work and the economic effects of the recession. Teachers cite events and people that illustrate issues that are most familiar to students. If colleges start, as they are scheduled to, teaching industrial relations etc then Steven Slater is going to be class discussed. That is not crystal ball gazing unless we have reasons to suspect the imminent end of higher education and such courses. We know this is going to happen because that is how he already being discussed such as here in Businessweek and here in Slate. This discussion puts Slater in a context that is the subject of many kinds of educational course. Students are going to write about such issues (as they do each year) using the most relevant and notable cases that illustrate industrial problems etc as already discussed in these pieces.--LittleHow (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a crystal ball gazing to note that this guy and his actions will be discussed […] Steven Slater is going to be discussed […] — In fact, speculating on what sources will exist at some point in the future is very much the canonical form of crystal ball gazing. Uncle G (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, good close, correct decision where a temporarily newsworthy but quickly forgotten individual is concerned. pablo 15:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, closure gave strong rationale based on the discussion, and arguments presented to overturn seem to be rehashing the AFD discussion. DRV is not AFD#2. I do note that there is possibility of Slater becoming notable in the future - there's word he's getting a reality TV show as host, which clearly will push him over that line, but that's still crystal-balling it. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - This was an incorrect reading of
WP:undue weight issues. Redirecting an article which was extensively sourced is an incorrect interpretation of WP:BLP1E since there was no article on a notable event to begin with. There is widespread difference of opinion on this matter (this is the longest afd I ever saw). In such cases where the opinions seem to be evenly divided the correct response would have been "no consensus" or redirecting it to a standalone article on the event. Americasroof ( talk) 18:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC) [reply
- Endorse own close. Regarding an article on the event itself, I've expressed my views on that
Mkativerata ( talk) 18:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC) [reply- Comment The nutshell of
WP:Event says "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." A simple check of google news shows that it is still in the headlines even today. You are making a crystal ball argument in reverse. You're saying you think that it won't be notable in the future but you don't know that for a fact either. This matter was closed prematurely based on an unsupported crystal ball that it will not be notable in the future. Since there is wide difference of opinion on what lies ahead the matter should have been closed as "no consensus." By all Wiki standards for third party coverage, the event is notable. Americasroof ( talk) 18:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC) [reply- (1) "Nutshells" are not guidelines; (2) no keep !votes made a supportable case that this will have lasting impact or coverage - pointing that out is not crystal-balling in reverse; and (3) you are commenting on an AfD that never existed for an article that never existed. --
Mkativerata ( talk) 19:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC) [reply
- Endorse. The incident trumps BLP1E and it's now covered at ]
Endorse That's a BLP1E. The redirect to the appropriate section in Jet Blue is plenty. I can imagine an article on the incident if coverage continues over an extended period of time (say a month or two). On the person only if something else major happens (a best-selling book for example). Hobit (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now neutral. I think BLP1E does apply here, but the sources below do indicate that this may be a one event significant enough to bypass that. That said, I'm having a hard time with believing that having a bio of this person will improve the encyclopedia in any way. Hobit (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, probably doesn't matter, but I'd strongly support an event article. Hobit (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closing action. The admin did an admirable job explaining both sides of the issue and sided with policy which is BLP1E. Slater is already starting to fade as his 15 minutes of fame/infamy is running out. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse No one's brought up anything that wasn't addressed in the closing comment or effectively rebutted it. I hate to say it, but I expect we'll be hearing about Steve Slater again in a year or two, but not in a good way. I think he's going to take the end of his 15 minutes really hard. We may want to re-address then. - Richfife (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The closer provided objective rationale for his/her decision based on policy while wading through the vast amount of recommendations made. The majority of the DRV statements recommending overturning the closing decision amount to a simple rehashing of the AfD. Time to put away the crystal balls. The incident is appropriately presented for your viewing pleasure at ]
- Overturn. This isn't Brian Peppers here. Policy was misapplied as Helvetica states above. Gamaliel (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - I thought it was an exceptionally well-reasoned close. A substantial portion of Helvetica's reasoning is pure crystal ballery, and the incident is adequately covered at the JetBlue article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - Well reasoned. I'm extremely impressed with the rationale. I wish all administrative decisions were as well thought out. PvsKllKsVp (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Also speedy close per the
talk) 02:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC) [reply
- Overturn: There was no consensus to delete. Overturn this close or I'm deploying my wikislide and grabbing some brewskis whilst you suckers kill everything fun about the project. ALSO, there was no consensus to delete and admins are not SuperVotingGods.--Milowent • talkblp-r 02:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse very much within the spirit of
WP:BLP1E, which exists mostly for articles just like this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC) [reply
- Endorse. Steven Slater is not being purged from Wikipedia. The incident is summarized in JetBlue and Flight attendant. If he achieves fame for something else, then that does not preclude an article in the future. patsw (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Two reasons.
- Policy issue - A reading of
WP:BLP1E shows that instead an incident article should have been created. I believe a 3rd way was emerging which didn't seem to have opposition and would have complied with existing policies. By just deleting it, editors were prevented from retriving the content to create an incident article which provided more detail than is justifyable on the JetBlue
- Technical Issue - Though I feel the closing admin acted in good faith, I am perflexed by this, and confused as to why there is a posting on the closing admin's talk page notifying him of the AfD and saying he was editing the article - if this was the case (I do not see such edits) should that editor be recused from then closing the AfD?
- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.198.90 (talk) 06:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to respond to the two points. To the first, there was no consensus to move the article to an incident article. Some suggested it, but doing so as an administrative action would have been unsupportable on the consensus. In any case, such an article would still have to pass
Mkativerata ( talk) 06:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC) [reply- I believe (per this), that the editor is confused because they think I closed the discussion, and I had ]
- Agreed. Editor is confused. Scrub my Techical Reason - I am wrong. Sorry my mistake i misunderstood that Lear's Fool was the AfD closer as he posted the AfD first visible action on
Steven Slater history since deletion. My mistake. BTW check out my post on the Talk page of the appeals project page. 24.23.198.90 ( talk) 06:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC) [reply
- Endorse The closing admin gave a very good, and very accurate account of the keep/delete votes, and pointed out that the "keep" opinions, while numerous, were weak; by contrast, the "delete" opinions were mostly based on good policy. It's great that Slater may get more publicity, and it will be of great interest to gossip columns for quite a while, but this kind of "bad day at the office" stuff is not in Wikipedia's scope. Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, with a note that those saying BLP1E means an article must be created on the incident are incorrect - an article on the event is still subject to
talk) 07:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC) [reply
- Strong Endorse. Perfectly correct closure. People notable for one just event should not have a Wikipedia article. Nobody will remember him in a year's time. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Reviewers of this deletion may not be aware, as the article text is deleted, that Slater's account, i.e the initial significant coverage has be shown by the passengers and investigators statements to be untruthful and Slater no longer is willing to discuss his initial account of the incident. That event itself had no consequence other than Slater's arrest. patsw (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whether someone in a newsworthy/notable event was telling the truth initially or not is absolutely irrelevant to notability the AFD or to proper following of guidelines and policies in this deletion review. It is right up there with "IDONTLIKEHIM." Edison (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not citing his fabrication of his original story as a reason to endorse the decision to delete. I was explaining that significant coverage was predicated upon his account being confirmed as being one of professional flight attendant versus inconsiderate, potty-mouth passenger yielding up a working class hero. Since it turns out to be a drunk and crazy flight attendant versus an imaginary female passenger story, yielding up a unemployed guy with a large pending legal bill, any
WP:CRYSTALBALL view that his Fifteen Minutes publicist will ultimately yield fame for him is (1) not likely and (2) not a reason to overturn. patsw ( talk) 16:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC) [reply
- Overturn and move to
JetBlue Flight 1052 (reluctantly). The BLP1E concerns are valid enough, I agree there should not be an article on Steven Slater as he was only in the news briefly for a single incident. The incident was unusual, but was not of such momentous impact that the person behind the incident becomes so notorious that he deserves a biography. However, the article as I read it was not a biography at all, it was an article on the incident. If the article had been titled after the flight number, I don't think we would be seeing this discussion over BLP1E at all. Personally, I am sceptical as to whether this incident deserves a separate article, it is borderline NOTNEWS, and personally I am OK with having it covered in the JetBlue article. However, I could not read out from the AFD any consensus that an article on the incident should be deleted, and as such my vote is to overturn, and then resolve the BLP1E issues by retitling the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC) [reply- Thank you for eloquently and succinctly expressing the the hot button issue here. Moving it to
JetBlue Flight 1052 would definitely address my concerns. I think editors made good faith effort to flesh out (and properly source) the story but did not entirely understand the naming conventions as they focused totally on the event and not the person. At some point you have to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Given that the debate which is biggest I've ever seen was pretty evenly divided, the closing has to be judicious. The closing by the admin deleted the article entirely. Somebody else then subsequently redirected it to Jet Blue. Restoring and renaming the article would definitely solve a lot of issues. Americasroof ( talk) 13:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC) [reply
- Endorse. Close was an accurate reading of the policy-based consensus. Wait a few months and try again if the coverage persists for whatever reason. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. There was no consensus to delete. Privacy issues should not be a significant factor here because the subject has hired a publicist and is now trying to keep himself in the public eye. If nothing comes of these plans, the article may well warrant deletion in the future ... but not when the subject is still being featured frequently in the news. (7,006 Google News hits in the last day. [4]) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse policy-based consensus. No question this fits the exact letter and spirit of the policy, which has the highest endorsement by Wikipedia's organizers and even the rule of law. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Endorse Votes for deletion were based on policy, mainly BLP1E votes to keep were on
WP:CRYSTAL. While the incident is notable, the individual isn't notable enough to warrant a full article. GainLine ♠ ♥ 16:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC) [reply
- Overturn: because of the immense depth of coverage, and per the RNC ad. The fact is, Steven Slater exemplified the feelings of a populace at a particular moment Purplebackpack89 23:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The "bold stand" and the wordy essay that accompanied it were both totally unnecessary. Sometimes, it's better to let things blow over; but even when there's a need to take a stand, it can be done in a professional manner. I'm not sure what's gained when an administrator makes statements like "This debate has been unduly affected by a large number of poorly reasoned 'votes'". How many people does that refer to? Fifty? Sixty? Why would you feel the need to insult that many people? Now, I don't whether the the WikiMedia Foundation will lose a contribution, or even so much as a dollar from Mkativerata's comments. But the service depends on the good will of a lot of people, including those who might deliver what you believe to be poorly reasoned arguments. While we sometimes might step on toes, we should avoid stomping on them. Mandsford 02:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "bold stand" and the wordy essay that accompanied it were both totally unnecessary. — You'd have preferred the more usual uninformative "The result was delete."? That's just daft. Explanations of an administrator's thinking in a closure are good things, as evidenced not least by the fact that this discussion hasn't been, as is all too often the case, a festival of guessing how the closing administrator came to the decision that xe did, based more on editors' stances on the outcome than on the administrator's actual thinking. And a rationale that is poorly reasoned (such as "Steven Slater is a hero." and "it will without a doubt add another law to the Patriot Act", to pick two examples that have nothing to do with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in the least) is a rationale that is poorly reasoned. It is not an insult to point this out. Indeed, it's quite proper to point out when rationales are poor and have no basis in policy, especially in order to encourage better, policy-based, ones. Your argument here is poorly reasoned. Uncle G (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "This debate has been unduly affected by a large number of poorly reasoned 'votes'"; or instead, "Some comments on the keep side weren't persuasive because they weren't grounded in the guidelines, specifically because...". A little diplomacy doesn't cost a lot. We can all reflect on our words more carefully sometimes, right? I think that was Mandsford's point. --Bsherr (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bsherr is correct; there's a difference between the exchanges between two editors who are acquainted with each other, and in one administrator telling a group of people, in effect, "you guys are full of it" (other letters optional). Does it bother me if Uncle G says to me that my argument is poorly reasoned? No. I've traded comments with him for quite awhile, he's responding directly to me, I can take it as well as I can dish it out. On the other hand, if Uncle G puts on the deputy sheriff's badge and starts telling half the participants in a large group of people that their comments are poorly reasoned, daft, etc. yeah, that would bother me. I saw in Newsweek recently that 2009 saw a trend in more people leaving Wikipedia-- in the sense of logging off and contributing nothing further-- than in joining it, in part because of the hostile climate. A little diplomacy doesn't cost a lot. On the other hand, tactlessness is a not good tactics. Mandsford 14:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn There was no consensus to delete. More editors argued for keeping an article on the incident/individual. The incident/individual is notable as shown by the thousands of incidents of significant coverage in independent and reliable sources worldwide. The oppose arguments were "IDONTLIKEIT" couched as an inappropriate application of BLP1E. Edison (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia has five pillars, the fifth of which is "Wikipedia does not have firm rules" and "Ignore all rules". This is to stop rigid application of policies where commonsense suggests otherwise. BLP1E is a good policy but some cases will exist where other factors must be taken into consideration. This is one since its notably lies not just in the person and incident but the resonance it has with other issues that until this lacked a dramatic "water cooler talkable" event that expressed them. This resonance is noted by many of the reports as to why it is notable: does this story resonate with so many because it's about people frustrated about their stressful, low-paying jobs or about an airline worker frustrated with his stressful, low-paying job?. Given that he has now got his reality show offer and been "channeled" in a Republican political advertisement surely this debate about deletion has changed -- he no longer can be considered as a one event notable person.--LittleHow (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Its a one off event that seems to have largley sunk into obscurity already (so not lasting notability either). Ther are one or two slifght stories (one seeming to indicate that this may be the act of a publicity seekeer).Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "One off event?" We've already seen a Republican Party campaign ad based on this event and an offer for a reality tv show, so it hardly seems to have "sunk into obscurity." On the contrary, it's already had a measurable impact. I can sympathize with you not liking there to be a famous person with your name though (especially if you think he's famous for something stupid.) I've got the same name as a famous person too, so I got teased a fair bit as a kid. Look on the bright side though - at least you were all grown up by the time there got to be a famous Steven Slater :-) -Helvetica (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not see any such campaign, but then I do not live in America (also I cannot verfiy such a campaign, please provide a link). As to the offer of a TV show, yep its an offer and it may not come to fruition. Also AGF. The coverage is not all fairly trivial show some major coverage in say the last 24 hours.Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Links to coverage of the RNC ads: [5] [6] [7]. Those are just a sampling. You can google for something like: RNC ad "Steven Slater." (RNC is "Republican National Committee.") -Helvetica (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Endorse We have all wanted to make a ]
- Overturn to move to
talk) 18:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC) [reply
- Overturn to no consensus, at least I think that's how I would have closed the AFD. After skimming through the whole thing, I cannot see how a deletion consensus was made. –MuZemike 18:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Have those endorsing this deletion read recent reports? These mostly do not mention, or only do so in passing, the actual events of Flight 1052. They are not incidence reports. Instead, they report secondary phenomena that take their cue from that event but which are separate from it, for example, a recent Fobes Opinion How To Head Off The Steven Slater In Your Organizatio or in the LA Times From the skies, a folk hero: Rebel JetBlue flight attendant Steven Slater has all the makings of the perfect symbol of the contemporary oppressed working stiff. The latter piece ironically given the article's deletion even talks about how Wikipedia characterizes folk heroes and observes that "Slater meets the wiki criteria". BLP1E covers people where “sources cover the person only in the context of a single event”. Factually, if you read the coverage this is no longer the case--unless “context” is defined in a very peculiar manner.--LittleHow (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You all take yourselves way to seriously!! What the hell is anyone even talking about. Wikipedia has lost exactly what it purported to become, an accessible, easily verifiable, easily understood open source of information. You all now have your own language, caste system and politics. Ridiculous. Leave the article alone. Isn't the information saved on server somewhere forever anyone. So this is really a big waste of time, isn't it? Get a date already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.68.22 (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Many keep !votes not based on policy, BLP1E. He's notable for this one thing (which is more notable as a whole, due to the media and public reaction). —fetch·comms 00:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn I must disagree with the close of the AfD, as I feel there was a large consensus to keep the article. At the time of deletion, I can understand why some would continue to argue for
WP:BLP1E , but let's look at the coverage he's generated since.
- This guy's come to represent angered employees during a troubled economy. The way we're building, I'm disappointed that the consensus was read as such. In a few months, when Slater's sitting there with his reality show and he's into his twenty minutes of fame, I'll be saddened to see that Wikipedia was unable to get past itself and create an article on someone who so clearly defies ]
- To this one can add making this an Urgent Recreate
- Subject of more than a dozen video songs – phenomena analyzed in the New Republic in The Ballads of Steven Slater
- A news topic researched by Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and found to be the top one of four of its New Interest Index in the last week and described not in terms of the incident but its resonance Flight Attendant Saga Resonates.
- 17,000+ viewers have seen the deletion notice replacing the article since it was removed who would have come to it to find out something about Steven Slater and instead found something about Wikipedia deletion policies.
- WP:BLP1E specifically includes the word generally “we should generally avoid having an article” and so notes exceptions can occur.
- WP:BLP1E also notes “the context of a single event”— much of the coverage is not about a single event i.e. Flight 1052 but a story that has resonance with general issues about work tensions in the recession. Reflecting this, when the article is recreated one would expect it to have a section on comments made about this resonance in addition to the actual incident. Since the article of Steven Slater would not be solely about a single event, commonsense suggests it is not applicable to make a BLP1E deletion of it based on it being about a single event.
- Wikipedia specifically has the fifth pillar "Wikipedia does not have firm rules/ Ignore all rules” so commonsense can prevail where unusual cases such as this occur.
- The article should be immediately recreated otherwise its deletion risks becoming itself a news story bringing Wikipedia into disrepute "Wikipedia editors cannot see notability tree in notability wood".--LittleHow (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia vs the English language "To pull a slater" has entered the English language. For example, giving examples not from transient blogs but proper newspapers:
The phenomena is sufficiently established that this use of Slater as a word has been discussed in The Globe and Mail column on language Hate the job? Pull a Slater. Or a Baxter: The JetBlue incident and its attendant linguistic consequences. As explained there:
The glee with which people have seized upon “pull a Slater” illustrates how badly the vocabulary of the workplace is out of balance. When bosses fire people, they have a large and colourful lexicon to draw upon: dismiss, lay off, downsize, let go, dump, give a pink slip to, show the door, terminate, discharge, cashier, kick to the curb, declare redundant, release. Japan has the bracing expression “kubi ni naru,” which, according to Anne H. Soukhanov, has the figurative meaning of being fired and the literal one of “becoming a decapitated head.” Yet for those who quit their jobs, there aren’t many terms on offer beyond resign, give notice and, particularly in Britain, ask for your papers.
One definition of something having "notability" is that people make note of that thing in the words they use. Steven Slater has gained that notability -- this as shown above is not only in actual sources of usage but also secondary comment upon this language change. Whether this usage sticks and enters the dictionaries is unknown but it is powerful evidence of him having a real notability in the world outside Wikipedia. Why is the article of this person with real world notability still under appeal?--LittleHow (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Trendy name-dropping in opinion columns aren't really going to move this to meme status, sorry. This person is only known for one thing; quitting his job in a highly-visible huff. Come back in 6 months or a year if a "Pulling a Slater" autobiography hits the NYT bestseller list. For now, he's about 14.5 minutes into is 15 minutes of fame. And please, drop the "not having an article beings Wikipedia into disrepute" argument, that is just patently ridiculous. Tarc (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To repeat, WP:BLP1E specifically includes the word generally: “we should generally avoid having an article”. The wise creators of the policy thus recognized exceptions for not having articles for people "only known for one thing" will occasionally occur. But this is by side the point. Steven Slater is now known for many other things as noted above including inspiring a political ad, having pieces written about the songs written about him, and now turning (with comment upon the phenomena) into a word. The latter cannot be ignored since it is a good test of notability as it shows that people in the real world feel a need to note the existence of Steven Slater when they talk and write about events and issues.
- As to whether not having an article brings Wikipedia into disrepute the unsigned comment by 67.85.68.22 expreses the situation well: "Wikipedia has lost exactly what it purported to become, an accessible, easily verifiable, easily understood open source of information. You all now have your own language, caste system and politics. Ridiculous."--LittleHow (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I seem to be embroiled in 1E discussions day in and day our around here, I'm familiar wit the text, thanks. :) In my opinion, and that of many others apparently, this does not rise to the level of an exception. All of what you cite is just more of the same, and a bit overblown IMO, all originating from the same "he quit his job" angle.
Pajamas Media following his famous Obama confrontation. That's what is missing here; Slater doing something else notable. Opinion columns turning a funny phrase or the RNC name-dropping him in an ad are not "something else". Tarc ( talk) 14:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC) [reply- The issue is whether WP:BLP1E is a rule of thumb or a criteria.
- The rule of thumb interpretation of WP:BLP1E looks at the general Wikipedia guidelines for something being notable. This identifies this not in terms of things and events in themselves but their noteworthiness as identified in people's reactions -- that people have "have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it" and "the attention a subject has received". But there is a problem when this is applied to living people in the news: near invariably that attention is temporary. Since Wikipedia is not an an indiscriminate collection of information some rule of thumb -- more than one event -- is needed to quickly filter out all those people who get one day or one week news coverage and then fade into obscurity. But as a rule of thumb, there will be exceptions--hence the careful phrasing "we should generally avoid having an article".
- The criteria interpretation takes the notability of living people to be specifically about them--in this case the criteria of the number of things-- one or many -- they have done. As an criteria it excludes any consideration of the kind of reaction a person might have gained in regard to doing one thing. They may have gained attention from across the globe, thousands of media reports, become a word in the language, have songs written about them, be the subject of political ads, and become a folkhero. That does not matter. Without a second physical event, they do not meet the criteria. Nor does it matter that most of the coverage has not even actually been about the primary event but how that event exists in people's minds-- as folkhero, resonant identification, as cue to depth analysis that put previously ignored issues in work and service customer relations into a new context-- no kind nor quantity of attention that has spun off that event is relevant -- only its singularity or not.
- My view is that
- (1) WP:BLP1E is a rule of thumb (the fifth pillar--no rigid rules),
- (2) that those that do not consider Steven Slater an exception should provide examples of what of would count as exceptions since if this is not one it is difficult to imagine what would be an exception, and
- (3) that he is in fact not notable for any event-he is instead notable for what people have massively, globally, and diversely read into something.--LittleHow (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just about said all that I am going to on the matter, honestly. I want to raise the bar for inclusion in this project, raising it beyond what the idiot drive-by media mentally masturbates over 24/7, so my "rule of thumb" for when one-trick-ponies cross the threshold into notability is exceedingly high. A guy that tells customers to go fuck themselves as he quits resonates with the downtrodden workforce. I get that. I get that a political party is tapping into this popular gestalt to score points. I get that OpEd writers who likely dream of telling their own managing editors to go fuck themselves have banged out "pulling a Slater" with wink-wink-nudge-nudge glee. I also get that 1 year from now, no one will care who "Steven Slater" is. I want to document what is encyclopedic, not every scrip and scrap of pop culture minutiae. Tarc (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "1 year from now, no one will care who 'Steven Slater' is." You can see into the future? Can you tell me which numbers I should pick for the lottery? ;-) –BMRR (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I kinda figured "in my opinion" is implied there, but since you asked, 4 8 15 16 23 42. Tarc (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia inclusion is neutral to personal likes and dislikes otherwise Wikipedia will end up like Conservapedia. It is acknowledged that the individual has high notability and that this has gone far beyond the event -- that it "resonates with the downtrodden workforce", that his notability is such that can be exploited by a political party in an ad, that his name has become a word. The problem is that this notability still does not reach an "exceedingly high" theshold. As for a Steven Slater article adding to Wikipedia documenting "every scrip and scrap of pop culture minutiae", three sentences earlier it was noted that he "resonates with the downtrodden workforce" which is not pop culture minutiae.
- The only good argument is that no one will be talking about Steven Slater in a year's time. But very little of the commentary is actually about Steven Slater as it is about other issues that he provided an occasion to discuss: the stresses of people in the service industry; customer relations; the experience of being an airline passenger, even as noted in The Times of India --his notability is truly globe -- what makes a folk hero. These concerns it be can confidently predicted will still exist next year--unless there is a dramatic end to the recession, the way we travel and work, and so these reasons why the issues raised by Steven Slater and his actions matter to so many people. Moreover, professors of journalism and sociology and economics in top universities such as Columbia University and George Mason University (see the Times of India piece) are now commenting upon Steven Slater in terms which have nothing to do with the actual events on that aircraft but the concerns about which they publish in regard to what makes media notability or a "bandit hero". The reaction to him is being treated in academia as a phenomena -- a sure sign that type "Steven Slater" into Google Scholar in a year or two's time and you get academic papers either mentioning or about him.--LittleHow (talk) 06:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then we can wait a year and recreate the page them with proper sections about cultural and social impact. It is also aknowledged that he may in fact have no impact and that this may be a notehr slow nwews day story, The jury is out. Also even if we do find academic iinterest we do not know what that will be. It may be papers with titles like "the invention of celebrity" or "interlebrity, vicarious fame in thye internet age" in which they discuse why non-notable evetns become cult status and whether or not this is dure to deliberate manilpuation or represents a desperate need for heros. the fact is we don't kn ow.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The last thing I have to say on this is that my position on this is not based on "personal likes and dislikes". We were talking about the "rule of thumb", which is subjective. Being subjective, I just have a higher threshold for what should be an article and what should not. It is not a ]
- Wikipedia is a regular new story itself and that is increasing upon its problems [11][12]. A year from now the inability to create a Steven Slater article will be a poster child in such reports of what the anonymous edit by 67.85.68.22 above noted observed and I quote again : ""Wikipedia has lost exactly what it purported to become, an accessible, easily verifiable, easily understood open source of information. You all now have your own language, caste system and politics. Ridiculous.""--LittleHow (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So in a years time there will be papers writen about him, but we won't have enough to write articel. Eithee this will be still notable in a year (which would mean there would be material to use in an article) or he will not be (the point many of us are making, this is a flash in the pan silly season story and nothing more). it can't be both.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tarc, you state above that your position is based upon a desire to raise the bar for inclusion in WP. This presumably means that, according to present standards, you think that this article would be included. But the present standards are the standards on which we operate. I further do not agree with the statement that policy necessarily trumps guidelines, . The statements in a "policy" are intended to be interpreted by the statements in a "guideline". There is no policy or guideline that does not require human interpretation and judgement. DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Although it's probably futile at this point, and although the evenly matched number of voices will, (ironically) probably result in "no consensus to overturn", studying the administrator's rationale indicates to me that his conclusion was made on his own interpretation of
WP:GNG. We don't say to Sully Sullenberger, "yes, you landed a crippled airliner on the Hudson River and saved everyone, but that's only one event". The administrator's rationale, as I read it, is that no matter how much attention Steven Slater receives, he will never be entitled to an article because he is only notable for one event. History is filled with people notable for one event. The one event rule was never meant to be read so strictly that it would cancel out other factors supporting notability. While there is a legitimate question of whether Slater would become historically notable (and none of us know), deciding this one on WP:BLP1E was incorrect. Mandsford 14:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC) [reply
- Overturn - Much new significant coverage since the AfD as indicated by Nomader that his own television show is in the works.
WP:BLP1E clearly states it applies to "low profile" individuals which this person certainly is not.-- Oakshade ( talk) 01:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC) [reply
- Overturn. There was no consensus to delete in the first place, and subsequent coverage has indicated that the notability is continuing. Our guesses that notability will not continue in widely publicized instances like this have, like this one, a tendency to be proven wrong by events. A failure to evaluate the information correctly is an erroneous close. (I suggest we consider amending the one event guideline to clarify this, that in case of doubt, we include the article. DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Agree with rationale as given by DGG (talk · contribs), in comment, above. -- Cirt (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus. As much as I am wanting to endorse this just on the basis of encouraging administrators to provide detailed explanations of their thinking, at contentious AfDs, as Mkativerata did so well here... but in the end I find DGG's rationale for overturning very compelling. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
