The Cartoon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was deleted even though the vote count was 3:2 in favour of keep.

In deciding to delete, the administrator's reasoning was:

"The result was delete. While the pure votecount is evenly matched on each side, Herostratus's comment is pretty much a delete !vote, and vinciusmc/meshach's proofs by assertion fail to impress. I have considered this closure carefully and will not be amending it; feel free to DRV if you disagree. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)"

However, Herostratus clearly voted to keep:

"Keep. Cruft. We have articles on all the other Seinfeld episodes, it appears. Future generations will doubtless thank us. Herostratus (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)"

Further, if the article on The Cartoon is deleted, shouldn't articles on other individual Seinfeld episodes be deleted? Isn't there an important issue of consistency?

Addendum (20 Aug 2010): In discounting the statement "We have articles on all the other Seinfeld episodes", the administrator overlooked or ignored a permissible WP:OSE - "When applied to creation of articles, this concept must demonstrate that articles of a similar nature and construct are included throughout Wikipedia."

Rainjar (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• AFD is not a vote --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why does the admin refer to "The result"? Rainjar (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The discussion ends in a result/outcome/whatever you want to call it. Using the word result is not synonymous with being a vote. Football matches end with a result, they aren't a vote either. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • So why bother to interpret Herostratus's comment as a delete vote in direct contradiction to the express vote? The referee at a football match records the final score. He doesn't interpret it as he would like. Rainjar (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • He refers to the bolded sentiment, which it appears was meant to be sarcastic. My reference to a football match wasn't supposed to be a direct comparison to AFD merely that the word result doesn't imply anything about voting. Really you can argue about if it's a vote of not as much as you like, it's long established that AFD isn't a vote and that isn't going to change here. For example Template:Not_a_ballot was created getting on 5 years ago to explain this concept to newcomers. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The aim is to reach a consensus isn't it. A 3:2 majority in favour of keep clearly isn't a consensus to keep, but it's hardly a consensus to delete either. My criticism is of "the administrator's reasoning". Rainjar (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The standard is laid out here and is that of a rough consensus. Saying 3:2 majority isn't a consensus is again try to boil this down to a vote, which it still isn't. If I state delete because it fails to meet policy X whilst someone else says keep, then if policy X is agreed by the broader community, my sentiment of delete is not just about my view at that point in time but has a broad community consensus from the formation of policy X. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • So a "rough consensus" is reached by ignoring an express vote and interpreting the comment that follows the vote as the admin wishes. If the recourse is to policy, what about the broader policy of consistency, and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's comment below? "[T]here's very certainly no good reason to reopen the not-long-enough-dormant TV episodes battling. And per WP:OSE, no reason to delete a single article from a comprehensive set unless there's cause shown to re-examine the global question" See also the comments by Robofish, Ron Ritzman and Kotniski below. Rainjar (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • How many times can it be said to you that AFD is not a vote. Wikipedia:NOTAVOTE#Deletion, moving and featuring. Yes if I say "Keep - the articles crap doesn't meet any of our policies but I think it's nice", then yes an admin should weigh the strength of that, the strength being that it's a sound reason to delete it. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • As I said earlier, my criticism is of the admin's reasoning. It is the admin that stated that Herostratus's comment was "pretty much a delete !vote", ignoring the express "Keep" vote. Not me. Rainjar (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Your criticism is that the admin didn't treat it as a vote, but that correct since it isn't a vote. He said !vote (i.e. not vote) the bolded sentiment shown is secondary (at best) to the opinion expressed. Final time of saying it, you can argue about it for as long as you like, but that's the way it works and has worked for many many years. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • My criticism is that the admin treated it as a delete vote (in effect, even if not by the precise word), ignoring the express "Keep" vote. How difficult would it have been to clarify with Herostratus? I did. If "that's the way it works and has worked for many many years", perhaps it's about time there was a broader review of the scope and exercise of the discretion. Addendum (20 August 2010): TeleComNasSprVen has raised on my talk page a discussion on !vote and polls generally, to which I have responded. Rainjar (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There were two indisputable keep !votes, both saying it met WP:N and two !votes that were indisputable deletes, both essentially saying the coverage is trivial and based purely on these four votes I think a no consensus close would have been appropiate. However, Herostratus's !vote is an interesting one as it could be interpreted a number of ways but personally I think it adds strength to the delete vote. Using the term "cruft" clearly suggests that the article shouldn't be kept (as I've never seen cruft used anywhere other than a delete argument before) while the rest of the !vote seems to be sarcastic comment on the fact that we have articles on many other episodes and so should keep this one. If this were a proper keep vote I would discount it as a "other stuff exists" vote but as I discuss above I interpret it's more as a sarcastic vote and so as a (weak) delete vote. The nominator, although saying it was a procedural nomination, also suggested that they didn't think the sources were sufficient to meet our notability requirements. Thhe nom's comment along with Herostratus's !vote clearly, in my opinion, push the consensus in favour of delete (although I think a no consensus close would also have been within admin discretion). Dpmuk (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why does the word "Keep" appear in the quote of Herostratus's response Rainjar (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As stated by Stifle below it's the strength of argument not votes that count and I interpret that vote as contributing towards the strength of the delete argument even if that's not what the user intended. Dpmuk (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • So an admin can not only ignore the consensus, but interpret the views of others any way he chooses. Your arguments become more bizarre with each statement. Rainjar (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If an admin is to interpret consensus they have to interpret the views of others, AfD is not a vote but is based on the strength of argument. In any argument people can make a mistake and accidentally make a comment that supports the other side more than they side they're supporting. This appears to be what happened here and usually it may be clarified by further discussion but that didn't happen here so the admin, as they are meant to, based their decision on what was in front of them as we have to end the discussion somewhere.
        • All that said even if we almost completely ignore that vote (which I think is reasonable if it is a keep vote as it amounts to a other stuff exists argument) I still think a delete vote was within admin discretion given the nominators comments where they said they don't think the current sources are good enough.
        • Finally all the comments about articles appearing on the rest of the series amounts to a other stuff exists argument. Yes, the current situation isn't idea but I'd suggest that many of the other articles should end up at AfD as well. TV episodes can vary in notability so it's probably appropriate to hold a separate AFD for each one (as here) but an argument for keep based on the others existing should be given very little weight as one has to go first. Otherwise we're in danger of allowing a walled garden - it would be precedent for any one to set up a whole bunch of articles and then say one shouldn't be deleted as it left a gap. Dpmuk (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • In discounting the statement "We have articles on all the other Seinfeld episodes", the administrator overlooked or ignored a permissible WP:OSE - "When applied to creation of articles, this concept must demonstrate that articles of a similar nature and construct are included throughout Wikipedia." If the comment was ambiguous, wouldn't the proper step have been to seek clarification, and not merely to interpret the comment in a manner that suited the administrator? If the view is that only a few episodes are notable enough to merit a separate article, then, as Ron Ritzman says below "Wouldn't a better approach be to start a discussion at Talk:Seinfeld or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Seinfeld about expanding the episode list articles to include short summaries and then turning most episode articles into redirects?", rather than seeking to delete individual articles, leaving one or more gaps in what would otherwise be a complete set. Rainjar (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, in my opinion seeking clarification isn't the correct thing to do. We have to draw the line somewhere - what happens if the editor doesn't reply for days or someone else comments in the meantime. Admins have to make the decision based on the discussion at the time of the close. While I agree that OSE can occasionally be a valid keep reason I don't think just saying an unqualified other stuff exists is. Saying other stuff exists and it's nearly all notable is a valid argument because then it would be odd not to have one. In contrast a plain OSE argument could be used to support an article on something where none of them are notable (as I explain above) so needs to be more reasoned to support a keep - plain OSE argument are regularly given very little weight at AfD. Dpmuk (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what an arbitrary line it has proven to be. As for how much weight as OSE argument should carry, it appears to me that the illustration used in the WP:OSE is weaker than in the present case. Rainjar (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse own deletion as AFD is not a vote; it's up to the strength of arguments. Stifle (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why do you refer to "The result"? Rainjar (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • See what 82.7.40.7 said above. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've replied to that. See also what I said immediately above your self-endorsement. Rainjar (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. First of all (and for what any of this is worth), I'm sorry for my confusing comment on the original AfD. I just kind of threw it off, and didn't expect it to become a bone of contention. I wasn't thinking it through, and that was an error, for which I apologize. My comment should probably have been ignored as being too poorly formed. Again, sorry. What I meant to say was something like: "Keep, even though it is cruft, per the precedent that we have articles on all the other Seinfeld shows. <sarcasm>Future generations will thank us</sarcasm> for retaining such cruft, but I suppose we must." Herostratus (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the clarification. Ironically, "List of Seinfeld episodes is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so." On the same subject of Seinfeld episodes, one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community to many, "cruft" to a few. We're all entitled to our views. It's just sad to see a few impose theirs on others. Rainjar (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Too bizarre to be allowed to stand. Admin seems just to have deleted an article on his own whim (none of the arguments on either side look particularly compelling, although I haven't seen the article), and the idea you can just reverse someone's opinion like that (without even asking him, as far as I can tell) is a travesty. The result is (apparently) that we now have a random unexplained gap in what was very comprehensive coverage of a topic, and at least one more editor disillusioned by seeing the way Wikipedia "works". --Kotniski (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, but... - The close itself was sound, but I question the nomination of a single episode out of the season, which has left one redlinked episode in the list of Season 9 blue links. Every episode of the season (apart from the finale and "Puerto Rican Day", which likely have sourced citations due to being the last episode and being controversial, respectively) should have been put up. Tarc (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Blatant abuse of the deletion process, as the admin was pushing his own POV contrary to policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Er, this is an issue of notability. Where in the AfD did concerns of either the neutral point of view or "objectionable or offensive" content come into play? Your input here is, quite frankly, rather bizarre. Tarc (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per Herostratus and Colonel Warden. I don't have a strong opinion about whether there needs to be a separate article for each Seinfeld episode, but it doesn't make any sense to have an article for all except one. Also, it was deleted without any consensus. Helvetica (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Overturn - Although I was too late to comment, I would have commented to keep the article, as I believe that movies, TV shows, and books are their own sources. But given the arguments at the time of closure, Stifle decided that the delete arguments out weighed the keep arguments, and I concur. It wasn't a poor close, but I wouldn't be against reopening to make sure. After looking through the citations, this should really be reexamined. Those citations were not as ambiguous as we were led to believe.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is looking a bit like the situation in the AfD where someone's !vote was reversed from what he said. You write endorse, then imply you'd quite favour reopening, which is overturn. Can you clarify? (I mean, we're not evaluating the admin here - we can believe that the admin took a perfectly reasonable decision at the time, while also believing that it's best for the encyclopedia that the issue be reopened.)--Kotniski (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. As Dpmuk says, this was within discretion. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Can someone do a tmp. restore so non-admins can see the article? The strength of the keep !votes depend on the sourcing of the article. Hobit (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Stifle has userfied it here. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would go out on a ledge and say that those citations were not as ambiguous as we were led to believe. They seem to be right on, and confirm the information in the article.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to NC I think the book provides enough coverage (including a plot summary) and some of the other articles are strong enough to make the claim that WP:N is met by the sources in the article credible. No one specifically explained why they weren't, so I don't see how those !votes can be discounted. In general when an admin is dealing with a majority !voting in a way they disagree with AND those !votes are at least reasonable the admin should !vote rather than close. Hobit (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Cartoon" episode of Seinfeld is referred to in the following Wikipedia pages (1) The New Yorker and (2) Ziggy (comic strip) - more "notable" than several other episodes of Seinfeld, but oddly, the only one that has had its article deleted. The parallel to real life events between Jerry Seinfeld and Kathy Griffin may also be "notable". Rainjar (talk) 06:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment in response to the vote count was 3:2 in favour of keep - if we look numerically (which we don't, as AfD is not a vote), the nomination is a "delete", so the "vote count" was 3:3. Also, I feel that the argument that this would be the only episode redlinked on the list of episodes is not a valid reason to overturn the closure - perhaps that's an indication that some/all of the episodes' articles should be considered for deletion? I make no further comment on this issue. Incidently, Stifle userfied it to User:Meshach/The_Cartoon, so it can be viewed there. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination was "Procedural nom". So not a !vote to delete as I read it. Hobit (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair point - I didn't look at the AfD before typing that (oops!). With that in mind, I'm going to say Overturn to no consensus -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus, as there was clearly no consensus to delete here. While some would say this is within the closing admin's discretion, I don't think such a bold move was appropriate; given that List of Seinfeld episodes is a featured list, and that (as Herostratus pointed out) all the other episodes have articles, I think a stronger mandate (i.e. more input) would be needed in order to make a new precedent by deleting this article. No objection to relisting this one to try to reach a broader consensus. Robofish (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as per Robofish. There certainly wasn't any consensus to be found at the AFD, and there's very certainly no good reason to reopen the not-long-enough-dormant TV episodes battling. And per WP:OSE, no reason to delete a single article from a comprehensive set unless there's cause shown to re-examine the global question. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to agree with Tarc's sentiments here. Why nominate only one episode? Come to think of it, why start with nominating any of them at all? Wouldn't a better approach be to start a discussion at Talk:Seinfeld or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Seinfeld about expanding the episode list articles to include short summaries and then turning most episode articles into redirects? (except the obviously notable ones like The Soup Nazi) The way it is right now, this leaves a big red hole on our coverage of episodes, especially if this AFD result is used as a precedent for nominating other Seinfeld episodes. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well said. AfD was the wrong forum for this in the first place (as is usually the case when the issue is not the inclusion of the information, but the giving of a separate page to a topic). --Kotniski (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close, within admin discretion; however, I don't have a problem with restoring it, basically per Tarc and Ron Ritzman. Timotheus Canens (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If by exercising "discretion", an admin can interpret an express "Keep" vote as a "Delete" vote, delete an article on one episode of a long running and popular series while leaving articles on the other episodes untouched (all of which episodes are a featured list on Wikipedia), and ignore a relevant WP:OSE, then perhaps the scope of the discretion itself needs to be re-examined. Rainjar (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So Stifle misinterpreted Herostratus' comment - something that often happens online when you write a sarcastic comment without noting it. Calling something "cruft" isn't what someone who supports keeping usually says, and how, exactly, is the closer supposed to figure out if the "keep" is sarcastic or not?

      It's not a defective close, but a defective debate. For that reason I'm happy with it being restored. But frankly, WP:BLUDGEONing about everybody who endorsed the close is not helping your case. At all. Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • There is a separate issue as to how "discretion" is exercised. I have raised it elsewhere, where it may be more appropriate to do so. I have not gone on about "everybody who endorsed the close". I have dealt with the argument that the decision was within discretion, which appears to be the principal argument. On a separate note, a debate is a debate. It can be a good debate or a poor debate, but I cannot see how a debate can be "defective". If anything was "defective", it was in the application of the process. Rainjar (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. The people arguing for keeping the article did a poor job of defending the article's notability, so I won't blame the closer too much for deleting the article. However, I agree with Hobit that the position of keeping the article has some merit, and that a consensus to delete the article was therefore not present. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Robofish.--Cube lurker (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Robofish and Sjakkalle. A poor debate which not surprisingly led to the wrong result. Not really Stifle's fault, but the close looks to be outside of consensus. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse As obviously within the discretion of the closer. Protonk (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to non-consensus, which was the clear result, obvious to 890% 80 or 90% of the people here. But what really bothers me is not the mistaken close, but the attitude in an admin saying "I have considered this closure carefully and will not be amending it; feel free to DRV if you disagree. " As for me, I'm perfectly aware that no matter how carefully I consider I might make an error, and I never make an admin decision that I will not reconsider. I know the odds are against any self-presumption I'm the most careful admin here, but even if the closer thinks he is perfect, he should recognize both that nobody else is likely to agree with him, and that a priori it's extremely improbable, to the extent that it has never yet been the case with anyone. Myself, I'd think anyone would want to have the opportunity to change their mind rather than experience a deltion review like this one. DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  890%? Are some people here sockpuppets, so the actual number of people commenting here is less than the number of accounts commenting here? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC) fixed my typo. Sorry. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• DGG, I don't understand your problem with an admin saying "I have considered this closure carefully and will not be amending it; feel free to DRV if you disagree." If, when his decision is challenged, an admin reconsiders it carefully but still believes it is right, what would you have him do? You seem to be saying that he must amend his decision if challenged - you surely don't mean that? JohnCD (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think DGG's objection goes to the closer's preemptive refusal to consider objections as a general rule, as expressed here [1] and restated in the close under debate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I understand, I had not taken in that those words were actually written pre-emptively in the AfD close under discussion. JohnCD (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak overturn to no consensus – Those first two "keep" !votes were correct as far as the sourcing is concerned (which I can verify). Discounting the one "keep", which was either sarcasm or otherwise an application of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it boiled down to whether or not the sources given in the article were valid and hence established notability. That being said, none of the arguments brought forth in the AFD were very good at all or developed enough, and neither came out on top. –MuZemike 18:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and severe trout: Textbook case of admin super!voting and deciding the fate of an article by his own whim. A consensus to delete for sure did not exist. It was a "no consensus" at worst. Considering a keep !vote, (even if ambiguously sarcastic), as a delete, is the icing on the cake: the closing admin should have at least asked what that meant. --Cyclopia^talk 21:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - the article should be kept. There was clearly "no consensus" in the discussion; for the closing admin to say otherwise is unsupportable. The closing admin must follow the decision of the AfD. Why do we bother to have AfDs if the closing admin just follows his own judgment? We would save ourselves a lot of time if we just appoint this admin to be the sole judge of wiki-worthy articles. Inniverse (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• There are several comments above excusing the administrator for the outcome of the AfD on the grounds that the debate/discussion in the AfD was poor. If the debate/discussion was poor, isn't that all the more reason for the administrator to be more careful in "interpreting" the debate/discussion, in the exercise of "discretion", and in the reasoning in reaching a decision? Rainjar (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - the article should have been kept. There was no consensus to delete and the Notability is demonstrated by the other episode's articles / the subject matter. meshach (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but should be restored anyway The close, based on what was brought, and strength of arguments, was correct. As others noted, AfD seems to be the wrong place for this to have gone. There needs to be some sort of centralized discussion regarding Seinfeld episodes, a mass nomination of non-notable episodes, or .. what. Picking off individual episodes seems to be the wrong way to go about it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Steven Slater (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

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]
  • ... is that a small mento?  pablo 15:51, 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 - User:Helvetica use of the magic word vote in the very first line leads me to believe that he is unaware that consensus is not a vote, but based on arguments by various editors. The arguments used to keep the article, mainly WP:BIO and WP:RS tend to always be superseded by WP:BLP1E, and 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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]
          • Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication of deleted content. --Waldir ^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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the canvassing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 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:BLP1E. BPL1E could only have been used if there were an article on the event. However there is no article on the event itself. The event is clearly notable given the WP:NOTE overriding rule that it "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." This should have been more a question of the article name. Editors of the article focused on the event rather than Slater's biography. If it had been named Jet Blue air rage incident of 2010 or some such there probably would not have been an afd debate. The event is complex. Fleshing out this complexity in the Jet Blue article will create 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 here. WP:EVENT generally requires an event to have impact and coverage; no-one in the AfD or in this DRV has made a compelling claim to "impact" without peering into a crystal ball. In any case, it's a matter for a different article. --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 JetBlue Airways#Incidents and accidents. Depending on follow-up regulatory repercussions within the industry, it might get its own article; for now JetBlue Airways Flight 1052 is just a redirect to the JetBlue article. We already have established practices for how to handle aviation incidents; see WikiProject Aviation/Notability#Accidents and WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout. A dedicated group tracks this stuff: WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force. These resources include formally defined "incidents" like this one; not just true accidents. Meanwhile, Mr. Slater is still covered by BLP1E. If he someday gets a TV show, writes a weekly column or runs for Governor of Alaska, we can then give him an article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 JetBlue Airways#Incidents and accidents. If in the future, the hopes and dreams of Slater come true and he becomes notable beyond this one event, an article may be possible. Until then, he can rest easy at the JetBlue Airways article. Cindamuse (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 10 minute rule, to forestall more irrelevant opinions in either direction on whether we'll see him on the news again, and generally stop the madness. (New rule. You're welcome, Wikipedia!) --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri (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 page. I see no evidence that this third way was considered in the deletion closing decision.
  • 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 WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT, and I think the case for it is questionable. To the second, I had not edited the article or the AfD before closing it; I'm not sure what talk page message you are referring to.--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 !voted in the AfD.  -- Lear's Fool 06:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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 WP:NOTNEWS, and an article on the event would still be subject to our BLP policy. Quantpole (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:ILIKEIT & 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 dramatic exit from a job we're tired of ... hell, I'd bet that at least one !voter in this discussion has taken a dramatic exit from Wikipedia at least one time. It may have been WP:NOTNEWS for a bit, but let's not encourage it - the 15 minutes of fame is over. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to move to Flight 1052 incident! Sjakkalle sums up my thoughts nicely! BLP1E is applicable with the current title, but moving it to the incident would work. Protector of Wiki (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Please do not tag me as an SPA because I am not!! I was blocked 24 hours on Simple for using the word "bullshit", which was considered a personal attack! The block was extended to 48 hours after alleged "shopping for admins"!! Thus, I am editing here with The Big Boys instead of at my home wiki (Simple). Protector of Wiki (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.
  • RNC ad shows democrats pulling a "slater" off Air Force One
  • Comparisons of his status to the movie Network [8] [9] [10], etc.
  • He's getting offers to host reality shows and has hired a publicist in order to deal with the amount of offers he's been receiving.
  • He's being analyzed for his effect on brand building
• 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 WP:BLP1E. Nomader ^(Talk) 02:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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:
  • Washington Post - The Jet Blue flight attendant -- and pulling a Slater,
  • Times Daily - Don't pull a Slater when out in public,
  • Charleston Daily Mail - There's something to be said for a stylish exit "So now, to quit in a huff with some measure of theatrics, is to "pull a Slater." .

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. Joe the Plumber became, and was soundly ridiculed for, becoming a reporter for 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 WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Tarc (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:BLP1E, rather than on the question of whether this would move beyond WP:NEWS. It appears to me that the original intent of WP:BLP1E was to avoid writing entire articles about people whose connection to an event was only tangential; the illustration provided in WP:ONEEVENT is of Rodney King (the acquittal of the police who arrested him became the 1992 L.A. riots) and of George Holliday (witness), the person whose videotape was the critical evidence in the case. Both are one event people. One is demonstrably notable; the other is little known, and yet he still redirects to an article about King. The one event rule was never intended as something to cancel out notability acquired under 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]

KRMS (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

On Aug. 13, RHaworth speedily deleted KRMS, with rationale "A7: Article about an eligible subject, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject".

Discussion with RHaworth prior to Deletion Review

Discussion with the deleting administrator was pursued, but this pursuit was futile. I approached RHaworth on User talk:RHaworth#KRMS speedy deletion and attempted to convince RHaworth to restore the page with the arguments I'll now present below. However, RHaworth was entirely unwilling to discuss the rationale for speedily deleting the page beyond a rhetorical question. Instead, RHaworth offered several alternatives that seemed questionable to me, as they seemed to compound RHaworth's error. (As an aside, are RHaworth's proposed alternatives and decorum consistent with the judgement expected to be exhibited by administrators? I was very surprised by the course of my exchange with RHaworth.) Regardless, RHaworth's responses indicated discussion was futile, leading to this deletion review.

This deletion was in error because:

1. KRMS is not an A7 eligible subject because, the the most commonly understood sense, it is a product/service, not a company

Consider an illustrative example: A person drinking Coca-Cola is not drinking a cool, refreshing corporate enterprise, but, rather, of course, a soft drink. That is why Coca-Cola and Coca-Cola Company, provided they are both notable, may exist separately. The former is not subject to A7, and the latter is. Listeners of radio stations are listening to a prduct/service, not a company. WP:PRODUCT states that articles on companies should include information on their products/services, but does not provide for speedy deletion of separate articles about products. Here, Viper Communications is the company, and KRMS is the product/service. The KMRS article did not discuss the corporate structure of the radio station, did not mention the officers and directors of its corporate entity, did not include information on its revenues and earnings, nor any of the other information frequently in articles on companies. Instead, it mentioned the radio station's broadcast frequency, power, and programming, supporting the assertion that it is an article about the radio station as a product/service. It was not an eligible subject for A7.

2. KRMS is per se notable under Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media

It states, "Licensed radio and TV stations are generally kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios." Wikipedia:OUTCOMES is a summary of widely accepted precedents in Articles for Deletion discussions. The very existance of this AfD precedent suggests that radio stations have been the subject of AfD discussions, and thus could not be speedily deleted under A7. Even if A7 applied, such a radio station would satisfy importance because it also satisfies notability per this precedent. KRMS is a high-powered station with its own programming, and thus fits within the precedent. Thus, even if KRMS were subject to A7, it is notable, and should not have been deleted.

If the speedy deletion is in error, the only acceptable soultion is for the article to be restored, and for proper process, such as a proposed deletion, or an AfD, to occur if requested (though I would not, and I think it would not likely be successful). As I understand, it would be unacceptable to simply recreate the page, because this does not restore, as would be required, the page history. --Bsherr (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You've devoted an extraordinary number of edits and paragraphs of discussion to exactly 1 sentence of content. Think what could have happened if you had devoted all of that time and effort, expended writing the above 6 paragraphs and the lengthy back and forth on the user talk page, into writing article content instead. Perhaps there'd be 6 paragraphs of article by now. And you want editors to expend more time in this discussion, a closing administrator to spend time closing it, and the whole rigmarole of an AFD nomination with yet more time and effort expended by editors and administrators, over this 1 sentence of content, you say? Uncle G (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely we should devote a few minutes to this process, to correct a heavyhanded error. The deleting admin should have checked AFD outcomes rather than inappropriately applying A7 to an article which would very likely have survived AFD. Which active 1000 watt AM station in the US was the last to be deleted in AFD? Any? Speedy is not a sly and idiosyncratic pocket veto over the consensus of other editors as to what constitutes notability. Edison (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Four days and eight edits to User talk:RHaworth, followed by a further four days and the time of 13 editors here is not "a few minutes" by any stretch of the imagination. Think about what could have happened, and how much of 14 other people's time could have been saved had Bsherr followed the suggestion in very first response given within 10 minutes and re-created a decent stub. And all this over 1 sentence. This is process wonkery. Look at the length of this discussion and the length of the article. We're here to write, not to have massive debates over rules about a 1 sentence unsourced stub. Shame on Bsherr for doing exactly what our IAR policy guards against: Spending all of one's time trying to nail down exact rules at the expense of not actually writing any encyclopaedia content. Uncle G (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some editors design esoteric userboxes, some decorate their user pages, and some write joke essays and templates. There's a debate right now at TfD about whether it's appropriate to welcome back an unbanned user with a cookie template. And some editors want to discuss how a speedy deletion criterion could potentially be applied or misapplied to up to 16,000 stub class and unclassified radio station articles. I don't judge how editors prioritize their work on Wikipedia. If you think this is a waste of your time, you're not obliged to spend it here. But I thank you for not publicly judging and belittling the good faith efforts of those that do. The one person with the power from the beginning to stop this at any time is the deleting administrator, who can very simply click restore, without having to ignore any rules to do so. But you don't criticize that person, perhaps because what you're really doing is taking a side? I presume you have good intentions, Uncle G. If you have concerns about the utility of some types of deletion reviews, why don't you bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Deletion review? --Bsherr (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:OUTCOMES specifically isn't precedent, wikipedia doesn't have precedent in such debates as concencus can and does change (And WP:OUTCOMES is merely someones interpretation of the reasons why articles were kept, not necessarily the reality of why the opiners turned out and kept those particular articles). It certainly isn't a guide to notability. Even by your own notion the article doesn't meet that bar, since WP:OUTCOMES doesn't merely say existance of radio stations, which is all your one liner defines. It certainly doesn't mention generation of it's own programming etc. The concept that because something of type X has been subject to an AFD so therefore anything of type X cannot then be speedy deleted is a nonsense, plenty of bands have been through AFD, speedy deletion still applies to the many garage bands created here every day. Other than that per UncleG the time spent so far could have recreated the article with more detail on the stations including a more obvious claim of significance. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. A radio station is a company or organization and therefore qualifies under A7. The nominator is welcome, and strongly encouraged, to just recreate the article overcoming the reasons for deletion. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn but I'd urge the nominator to consider the need for this DRV. Speedy deletion is specifically meant to be for uncontroversial cases where the deleting admin can be certain his article would be backed by the community. Although I don't agree with point 1 above I do agree that point 2 raises enough uncertainty about whether this would certainly be deleted at AfD that a speedy was inappropriate, especially given that the speedy had been removed and per our deletion policy "if there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions". That said I'd ask the nominator to consider just starting the article again from scratch and withdrawing this DRV as there seems little point in going through the whole procedure of a DRV just to restore a one sentence article. Dpmuk (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Speedy deletion criteria was used properly in this case; everything else is simply "I don't like the outcome". Recreate the article in userspace, this time more fleshed-out and with citations to demonstrate notability. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• May I ask, for those who consider a radio station a company or organization, are all specific products/services also companies or organizations? An example that comes to mind is a TV channel like ESPN 2, a product/service of company Disney. Is ESPN 2 itself considered under this rule a company? If products/services are considered companies/organizations, becuase, to me at least but I'm sure to others, this isn't intuitive, there would be value in clarifying A7. (To me, the reason to continue this deletion review is to determine exactly what the bounds of A7 are.) --Bsherr (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The deletion was contrary to numerous policies including WP:IMPERFECT, WP:PRESERVE and WP:BITE. The threshold for A7 is lower than WP:N and is intended to exclude complete non-entities, not broadcasting stations which, by their public nature, have obvious significance. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Article asserted that its subject was an over-the-air radio broadcast station, which is clearly an adequate assertion of significance to survive A7. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The article asserted KRMS was a broadcaster. That is the assertion of significance which makes CSD A7 criterion not applicable in this case. patsw (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy The topic doesn't quite fit under A7 as Bsherr points out. I disagree with Stifle and don't see how it can be considered a company or organization in this context. Further, as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and patsw point out being an over-the-air broadcaster is an assertion of notability. I've yet to see an FCC-licensed broadcaster deleted at AfD. Just not good A7 material for those two reasons. I do have significant sympathy for Uncle G's comments however and I'd hope that once restored the nom would find the time to improve the article to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The article in its entirety basically amounts to an announcement that a radio station exists. The DRV nominator claims notability based on incomparable precedent and WP:OTHERSTUFF rationale. The nominator claims that the article was an inappropriate speedy delete under the A7 criteria, believing the radio station is not an organization. KRMS radio station is a legally recognized subsidiary organization of Viper Communications, Inc. in the state of Missouri. KRMS as an organization hires employees, participates in job fairs, files EEO reports, complies with the FCC, pays taxes, holds a business license, is a member of the Camdenton Area Chamber of Commerce, and endorses community events and business conferences. My ice cold Coca-Cola can do none of those things. The nominator of the DRV claims that the article is not about an organization, because the article did not discuss the corporate structure of the radio station, did not mention the officers and directors of its corporate entity, did not include information on its revenues and earnings, nor any of the other information frequently found in articles on companies. Maybe the article should have. It would at least have made a thorough article. S/he wants the article restored so that proper process can be followed to delete it. To paraphrase, the nominator states that the intention of this DRV is to test the boundaries of the A7 criteria. Is this really a proper use of DRVs? S/he doesn't like the deletion under the A7 criteria. This article was appropriately CSD-A7 deleted. Any claims that this radio station is not an organization is a weak argument and defies corporate law, common sense, and all logic. Cindamuse (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As to the last, would you claim that ESPN 2 is an organization? Why or why not? If not, how does it differ from this? I think the analogy I like best is that Coca-Cola is different than The Coca-Cola Company even though they both have basically the same name. I don't think A7 should apply to TV or radio stations no matter if their parent company holds only them or holds many stations (or other things). Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not here to offer an essay on WP:OTHERSTUFF, I am here to review the deletion and recommend action pertaining to the article noted above. As such, you may view my remarks above as it pertains to the task at hand. Cindamuse (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • All right then, I'm asking you to justify your statement that "Any claims that this radio station is not an organization is a weak argument and defies corporate law, common sense, and all logic." I'm arguing that not all stations are clearly organizations in the sense meant by A7 and providing examples of things that would seem not to be. Could you explain why this one is? Hobit (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gave my thoughts before, but I have to correct misinformation. KRMS is not "a legally recognized subsidiary" of any sort in the state of Missouri. Mahaffey Enterprises is.[13] That's the name of the subsidiary that delivers KRMS, the product/service. Mahaffey has the power to hire employees and make payroll. Viper's name is on the EEO reports and FCC license. KRMS is a call sign, a channel, a product or service, in the same way that a can of cola is. Even if KRMS were the name of a subsidiary, feel free to speedy A7 KRMS (corporate subsidiary). While I'm writing, please allow me to address just a few other points. I used examples only to illustrate. ("Imagine this were Coca-Cola, ESPN 2...", not "Because of Coca-Cola, ESPN 2, ...). Although Hobit put it more directly, I'm sure that's Hobit's intention too. And, why shouldn't the implications of this decision on the guidelines (CSD) be relevant? Deletions aren't decided capriciously. We have guidelines. Questions of how those guidelines should be interpreted now, and thus going forward, are not relevant here? I'm not testing the bounds of A7, I'm asking them to be defined through this situation. I do appreciate all of your insights, no matter whether I agree or not. --Bsherr (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. All FCC-licensed broadcasters have A7 significance.

No one goes through effort and expense of getting a established as an FCC-licensed broadcaster insignificantly. I will stipulate that it is a poor article, but that's not the A7 criteria for a speedy delete. Any experienced editor could (and should) added some info on the station and a link to some independent coverage. Such improvement would have been equal to the editing effort to speedy delete it. I agree with the above editors who added WP:BITE as a criticism of the process this article experienced. patsw (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I temporarily restored it for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  How about restoring the content and not just a blank article for the deletion review? Edison (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You'll need to check the history to see it. This type of undeletion is standard in DrVs. Hobit (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn without any statement about whether or not it is itself actually notable, saying it's a broadcast station is a clear indication of significance. It's appropriate to bring a Del Rev, rather than just rewrite, because admin errors should be corrected. I've had decision of mine reversed here, and I 've learned from them. DGG ( talk ) 16:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn In countless AFDs, federally licensed broadcast stations which originate a portion of their programming have been found to be notable. The article should have gone to AFD if the nominator doubts that it meets those criteria, or if he feels that such licensed stations are not notable in general. Just stating in the article that it is a 1000 watt AM station and that it creates some of the broadcast content is a statement of notability, making an A7 CSD improper. Edison (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Seems to have recived some coverage as a radio station. AFD should be restarted.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, list at AFD – Probably doesn't meet A7, but I would still question if the relevant notability guidelines are met, however. –MuZemike 18:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]