User talk:Geo Swan/Marisa Lazo

Call for discussion
In this edit placed a prod on this article, with the edit summary, "non notable individual, transient fad due to one time media coverage".

Lazo was far from notable, prior to the incident. Individuals like her, are generally, but not always considered non-notable -- fall short of our criteria for inclusion in a stand-alone article.

When individuals are considered exceptions to BLP1E it can be because the role they played in their incident is considered symbolic. Joe the plumber would be an example. He was a nobody, prior to his first incident.

Sheer volume of coverage is another reason exceptions are made.

Lazo's rescue is the first of its kind, for Toronto.

Heather Mallick wrote:
 * {| class="wikitable"

I see this as an instance of Lazo becoming an iconic symbol. Mallick's comments transcend Lazo's rescue, as Lazo serves an iconic symbol that allows her to address the deeper issue of taxation.
 * "I salute both of them, Wonfor, the affable athlete, the quintessential good Canadian heading off after the rescue to tend goal in a recreational hockey league, and risk-hound Marisa Lazo who, like all 23-year-olds, thinks she will never die. Long may she think this."
 * "Why has tax come to be a dirty word in Canada? If each Canadian contributed a few dollars more, we could fix all this, as well as plucking the younger generation out of the air and taking them to safety."
 * }
 * }

If, or some other contributor, doesn't respond with a convincing explanation as to why Lazo shouldn't be considered an example of a BLP1E who serves as an iconic symbol, I am removing the prod. Geo Swan (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * While you may see her becoming an iconic symbol this would be a prediction which I am pretty sure is not okay. Additionally, I read the notability guidelines and I think this section adequately addresses this. "It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous". Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event. Conversely, a person may be generally famous, but significant coverage may focus on a single event involving that person."


 * She is accused of being a petty criminal that required the fire fighters to rescue her. The dynamic rescue using a helicopter in Kingston a few years ago would arguably be iconic but they do not appear in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommotioCerebri (talk • contribs) 03:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You write: "this would be a prediction which I am pretty sure is not okay." Hmmm.  This comment is probably based on a reading of the advice of WP:CRYSTAL.  I encourage you to go back, and read it more carefully.  I think you misread this advice.  Genuine lapses from Crystal are, essentially, a lapse from the policy barring original research.  When a wikipedia contributor contributes material because they think some prediction will come true, that is a lapse from crystal.  I offered instances of verifiable, authoritative references, who are already talking about Lazo in a context that transcends her trespass, her rescue.  What this means, sir or madam, what this means, is that this is not an instance of Crystal.


 * You write: "She is accused of being a petty criminal..." If you are nominating the article for deletion based on your feelings about petty criminals you are lapsing from the advice in WP:Arguments to avoid, specifically, WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  You are not an RS, so your personal feelings about petty criminals is completely irrelevant.  What is relevant is that RS wrote about her.  Moreover, they wrote about her in ways that transcend simple coverage of her rescue.  A famous Professor of Psychology cited her as the poster child for the Type T personality -- a kind of thrill-seeking personality.  That is multiple events.  BLP1e doesn't apply.  She is both a trespasser, and the poster-child for a personality type.


 * Are you arguing that we shouldn't cover Lazo because we don't have an article about the 2013 Kingston helicopter-crane rescue? If so, please re-read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which says: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing–apart from WP:N rules–stopping anyone from creating any article..."


 * Point of order... Are you also contributing as, and maybe other wiki-IDs?  Don't do that.  It is regarded as a technique some sneaky people have used to make it look like other people agree with them.  It is called sockpuppetry, and people hate sockpuppets.  Geo Swan (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am new to editing on here but took the approach of learning as much as I can before participating. I find it extremely off-putting that you felt the need to flood your response with accusations in a condescending tone. Also I am not the same person as above and understand that multiple accounts are not acceptable. That being said this article reads like a news article and uses op-ed information. This individual is only notable for this one event. CommotioCerebri (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, I don't find CC's denial that they are using multiple ID, at the same time, to be credible, in light of this comment.
 * For the record, there is a difference between a civil expression of disagreement, and a personal attack. I have, literally, over a thousand times more experience on the wikipedia than CC.  If CC can't accept that someone with much more experience than they have, might have something worthwhile they could learn from them, then...  well I don't know what to say.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)