Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Slater (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 redirect to JetBlue flight attendant incident. by clear consensus that this is a BLP1E situation JohnCD (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Slater

edit
AfDs for this article:
Steven Slater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E. Everything covered about this individual belongs at the main page of his 1E, JetBlue flight attendant incident. Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The original deletion was about lack of sources for established notability. This has changed. The review of the year 2010 made by diverse sources is that Steven Slater was a notable person for the year 2010. If he had been ignored, he would have been as people suggested in the original deletion discussion transient news. But he was not ignored. Things have changed to tip him well over the threshold into notability.
(2) His fame has lasted more than a few weeks. He is still considered sufficiently notable in 2011 to be the subject of a comedy sketch and song in an off Broadway musical. In the world beyond Wikipedia a director thinks an audience will not only know who Steven Slater is but still be interested to have laughs and entertainment made about him. That is lasting nonnews type real world notability.
(3) He passed Time (magazine)'s end of the year radar for notability and so any reasonable threshold for Wikipedia. Note, Time was highlighting in this not the incident in which he was involved but Steven Slater the individual. It may be objected that he topped their lists for "fleeting celebrity" and "15 minutes of fame" but that is not so relevant as it might first appear since they do not concern the kind of temporariness that rules out Wikipedia notability.
(4) Time has picked him up as being notable for understanding 2010 and that includes those individuals in 2010 most notable for their fleeting celebrity and five minutes of fame—as it notes his becoming a " folk hero to overworked, stressed-out employees everywhere " and " a folk hero among frustrated workers across the country". If you were asked to write a term paper about events in say 1970 you would want to know and perhaps write about the individual that Time considered to be the top person with fleeting celebrity and 15 minutes of fame for that year. Time changed the context of his notability to totally different one from that in August--one that is about what was important in 2010.--LittleHow (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pet Peeve: WP can't keep the article a lot. There's no such thing as keeping the article with prejudice. How strong your desire to keep the article is is irrelevant. Your arguments for keeping it are what's important. Padillah (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficient coverage and lasting impact. Marcus Qwertyus 17:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient coverage and lasting impact. The guidelines don't require that the individual be worthwhile. They don't require the individual be important. They don't even require that the individual have the sense God gave a titmouse. Just that they are notable. As that is the ONLY criteria that need be adhered to, he qualifies. Padillah (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The guidelines require one to be notable for more than one thing, though. Still cashing in on his 15 minutes of fame is not sufficient to surpass 1E if its all just "hey, here's the JetBlue guy!" types of appearances or name-drops. Nothing of significance has happened since the last row of AfDs and DRVs. Tarc (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Everything mentioned in Steven Slater#In the press is about the same one event, and the article still falls perfectly under WP:BLP1E. Reliable sources saying "person X is notable" doesn't make them notable for Wikipedia's purposes; and in any case, they're all saying he is notable for the same one event, in which circumstances both WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E trump everything else. ninety:one 18:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read the Time magazine's explanation of his notability it is not primarily about the event of the wikipedia incident article but that he became "a folk hero to overworked, stressed-out employees everywhere" [1].
One curiosity, Time's judgment of fleeting celebrity can be badly wrong: for 2009 it put Susan Boyle as its number two fleeting celebrity.[2]
You're totally missing the point: Time do not say that he is notable for more than the one event, because he is not. There is room for the nonsense about him being "a folk hero to overworked, stressed-out employees everywhere" at JetBlue flight attendant incident. It does not justify him having a seperate article. ninety:one 19:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With all respect, this is what Time actually does write. Time is specific in its words: Steven Slater is a "a folk hero to overworked, stressed-out employees everywhere". The core point is that in Time's view Steven Slater is very notable (top number one on two lists), and notable for something that while linked to the incident, goes far beyond it -- his status as a folk hero.--LittleHow (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to JetBlue flight attendant incident. I think that the most telling detail here is that almost all of those end of the year summaries of overrated stories are about the incident, rather than about Mr. Slater himself. The lack of any update on what happened to him after August clears up the doubts that existed before about whether he would prove to be notable. I would infer from the lack of book deals or reality show appearances that this man isn't seeking to be put under the microscope for the rest of his life, and if that's the case, then leave the guy alone. For those who aren't yet saying "Steven who?", I would bet that they do not recognize the name of Jennifer Wilbanks, who was quickly forgotten after the 2005 incident to which her name now redirects. Mandsford 21:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as swiftly as possible. The new information is trivial--note that even if we considered it a notable source, it specifically calls his celebrity "fleeting." Since there has been no substantial change to this article since the last AfD, it should be speedily returned to a redirect, just as if someone had recreated a fully deleted article with no new substantial information. Note that there is a very real concern for the individual, here--yes, Slater did something very public and very intentional, but we have no way of knowing if continuous reminder of this negative event is causing harm. WP:BLP1E is specifically made to allow people who are "famous" for events of this type to fade out of encyclopedic memory. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ten days ago, he made a surprise cameo appearance during a performance of the musical review Newsical in the skit which lampoons him. He is well known and actively in 2011 milking his notability and so the idea of protecting him from notability does not apply The JetBlue Diva Is Back!--LittleHow (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I shouldn't have focused on the protection aspect. But the policy is clear, "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." The only way for Slater to have his own article is for him to become "high profile" and to be famous for "more than one event." The only thing that is different between the last deletion discussion and this one is that a notable news organization explicitly told us that Slater is a "fleeting celebrity". I would argue that the Time article actually reinforces the redirect decision, not overturn it. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Fleeting notability based on BLP1E. Restore in a year if subject has achieved recognition for more than the single event and its aftermath. Johnuniq (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation. A core pillar of Wikipedia is no original research i.e. as little input from editors with articles being instead created in regard to outside authoritative sources. This applies both to content, and wherever possible, notability. Time magazine is authoritative and has provided that external source and has specifically done so for Steven Slater as an individual. It has recognized this notability as separate to the aircraft incident in which he was involved since
    • (1) it has given the aircraft incident a separate entry as a notable travel event, and
    • (2) in its discussion of Steven Slater identifies how his notability goes beyond the mere physical events of that August day on that aircraft in regard to his being now a folk hero.
To discuss WP:BLP1E and redirects here when there is this external authoritative source (as well as many others) that identifies his notability as distinct ("folk hero") from the incident, I suggest, is to start to do a kind of original research in regard his status and its nature. Time Magazine has done the work of Wikipedia editors as an external source in deciding his notability and its nature as that of him as an individual.
If there is to be debate it is whether Time Magazine is sufficiently authoritative as an external source. In regard to Time calling his notability "fleeting" look at the company in which they put him top -- they are not big (apart from Susan Boyle, number 2 fleeting celebrity of 2009) but they mostly already have Wikipedia articles "fleeting celebrities 2010" and "15 minutes of fame 2010" and Fleeting celebrities in 2009).--LittleHow (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, but I believe you are confused--Time Magazine does not set our standards for notability or other inclusion standards. Simply because Time prints something does not guarantee that information should be anywhere in Wikipedia; it certainly doesn't guarantee that something should be an article. Your very second sentence ("This applies both to content, and wherever possible, notability") has no basis either in practice or in policy/guidelines. In any event, WP:BLP policy, including WP:BLP1E can (and I believe in this case does) override notability--that's the whole point of WP:BLP1E. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps other opinions are needed here. But I understand Wikipedia's core principles are about letting external sources do the work. Editing is merely transmission. Nothing is added so no point of view, no personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions, and instead always the use of verifiable authoritative sources. We merely take--using as much commonsense as we can--what is authoritative out there and turn it into encyclopedia articles. Time Magazine has made a very clear external statement in putting Steven Slater at the top of two of its end of 2010 lists that he is notable and that his notability is separate "folk hero" from the physical events of August. To ignore this is to add a personal opinion to the editing of Wikipedia. We can debate how far Time Magazine is authoritative here but not that sources normally considered authoritative (Time Magazine is not alone) are treating Steven Slater as notable and in a way (folk hero) that is separate to the physical incident in August. WP:BLP1E is about protecting individuals incidental to events from further undue publicity: this does not apply to Steven Slater as he is actively seeking publicity such as the cameo appearance he made ten days ago in off Broadway show containing a comedy routine and song about him.[3]--LittleHow (talk) 08:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But there is unique information in the Steven Slater article that is not in the incident one and this is key information as to why people reading Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear might what to know more about him.
that he is treated as a folk hero,
that he is the subject in skit and song of an off Broadway show Newsical
that he has been the subject of a dozen plus songs and a political ad
that he has notability widely explained as due to resonance of his situation with workers in a recession
This information about emotional reactions helps explain why he was selected to give a videotaped message to the Rally, while the incident article leaves that issue a bit of a mystery.
WP:BLP1E should not be used to advance the point of view that information about emotional reactions to an individual is inappropriate content in an encyclopedia article and that content should be limited to only physical event details. This seems to be the case here since confining discussion of Steven Slater to only the aircraft incident cuts out discussion about how people reacted to what he did (which is a core part of the article about him). If this viewpoint is what editors feel they should state they have a concern about the appropriateness of including details about emotional reactions to people particularly in regard to their notability. If this is a grounds of objection it can be discussed.--LittleHow (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you call the media notability section? Add another paragraph to it if you like. It doesn't affect the WP:BLP1E criteria. —UncleDouggie (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to Redirect - My god, I hate dealing with the same "one event" garbage every few months. There is no "widely expanded notability", this is just gussied-up lipstick on a pig. Folk heroes? Resonance with workers? Please... We're still at the same point; one person has 15 minutes of fame by getting toasted and quitting in a huff. Becoming the butt of some jokes and name-dropped in a few songs doesn't cut it. I see alot of calls redirects and such so far, though; I wish this logic had carried the day at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Williams (announcer). Tarc (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's why we have reference materials like Wikipedia. The "Ted whos?" from ancient times are never completely forgotten.--Milowent • talkblp-r 16:23, 31 January 2011 (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/Steven_Slater_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1144336410"