Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcides Moreno (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Alcides Moreno
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This person is notable only for having "miraculously" survived a 47-storey fall in a window cleaning gondola in December 2007. This was previously nominated about a month after the initial event and generated no consensus. Now with about 18 months perspective it is clear that he has not got long-term notability and the article should be deleted per WP:BLP1E. At the very most he deserves a one sentence entry in a list of people who have survived falls from great heights type article (if one exists) Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that I have notified every significant contributor to the article (excluding those who declare they have left the project) and everyone who commented on the first AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability does not expire and, in any case, here is recent coverage from all over the world which demonstrates that the nomination's assertions are false. WP:BLP1E is not relevant because there is no separate article about this event of which this is a spinoff. If, as suggested, we merge this content into a more general article about falls from great heights, we would retain this heading for its edit history and as a useful search term. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The recent coverage you refer to isn't actually recent. If you look at the sources you will see that they are from the time of the incident. Maybe they come up with recent dates if they have been archived by the websites. Quantpole (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Notable people are a subset of newsworthy people but are not equivalent. This clearly falls into BLP1E - this person is known for nothing else. Mostlyharmless (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Vesna Vulović gets notability for her amazing fall, but this guy isn't a world's record. Clear case of WP:BLP1E.  Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Racepacket (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, I still agree with my original assertion that this was WP:BLP1E. No evidence since has been presented that would suggest otherwise. Redfarmer (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete One event. Survival does not count as a second event. And wehre one event occurs, there is no policy I can find which says the single event must have an article at all. Collect (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and further expand. WP:BLP1E states "If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources.". Without question, the event was significant, the individual's role within it was singular, the event was exceedingly well documented nationally and abroad, and it continues to have ramifications. The amazing survival of this man, despite what he experienced, not only makes the article noteworthy and encyclopedic, but its continued coverage in relation to other similar events and its use as a reference in articles unrelated to the man, show that the continued significant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources of this man, the event, and his subsequent recovery, triggered coverage and its referencing in other safety issues, nationally AND internationally make it more than qualify for inclusion PER guideline: New York Times 1, New York Daily News, NYP, The Sun, NJ.Com 1, Workers Comp Insider, Daily Gotham, Gothamist 1, Daily Mail 1, Taipai Times, BBC News, Independent, UPI, Bloomberg, NYC.gov, National Ledger, The Ledger, Gothamist 2, KATU, London Evening Standard, New York Post 1, NJ.Com 2, Seattle Times, The Age, Indian Express, Sky News, The Guardian, ABC News, Sydney Morning Herald, Daily Mail 2, New York Post 2, NJ.Com 3, The Times, Sunday Express, Slate, Newsweek, WCBS, The Doctor Weighs In, US Law, Brunei Times, The Star, Etc, etc, etc... there are hundreds of in-depth coverages of the event, its cause, its repercussions, its results, and its notable uniqueness echoing all over the world. This man, the event and its consequences leaps past the WP:GNG like a rocket. Time for just a little WP:COMMON SENSE folks.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that there are so many opinions that this topic is not sufficiently notable suggest that the common sense is different from yours. Bongo  matic  14:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete BLP1E Hipocrite (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting and succint. But I am confused. Can you possible expand your answer and show how you determined that WP:BLP1E's specifically allowing such articles through its stating "If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources" does not apply? Thank you,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not Hipocrite, but from my perspective the answer is that I do not believe the event was "significant" for the purposes of a long-term, global, general encyclopaedia - it has had no lasting impact on society, window cleaning, sky-scraper construction, safety legislation, etc.
 * Also I would dispute that Mr Moreno's role in the event was "substantial" - the event (the falling window-cleaning platform) happened to him, and he played no part in its cause (I've seen nothing that suggests he caused it directly or indirectly), its progression (as far as I'm aware he was just a passenger and did not accelerate, slow, impede or facilitate its progress under gravity), or it's outcome (his actions did not, as far as I can see from the sources quoted, cause, avert, exacerbate or mitigate the injuries to himself or his brother, nor did his actions prevent anyone on the ground getting hurt, and they played no significant role in the damage or lack thereof to building, ground, platform or equipment). That he survived and his brother did not was that Alcides got lucky and landed on a pile of cables with his limbs under him while his brother did not. If this seems harsh, consider the analogy of two passengers in an airliner that crashes, that one of them survives and the other doesn't does not mean the survivor played a substantial role in the accident.
 * The reason the event was newsworthy outside of the locality in which it happened (and I agree that it was) is that one person survived. Neither this though, nor any human-interest stories about his recovery, make a biography about Alcides Moreno encyclopaedic at this time. Iff he goes on to become a notable person for other reasons, related or unrelated to this accident then this article can be recreated as a paragraph in that biography. Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a significant event. If it were a significant event, it would have an article created before I just made this comment. Since it doesn't, it's just trivia. Hipocrite (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notable for one event. Coverage does not seem to be ongoing. Though there are extensive news stories, they are the typical sort of 'fluff' reports that end up getting picked up by lots of newspapers. Quantpole (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, Thryduulf makes some good points above.  Alcides Moreno was just along for the ride as the gondola fell.  He in no way compares to John Hinckley, Jr. who was the driving force between the one event that makes him notable.  A new name 2008 (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ONEEVENT without prejudice to the creation of an article about the event which is arguably notable. Bongo  matic  14:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per BLP1E - despite the story being covered "as far away as the UK"! ukexpat (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment, I have seen some editors state that they lately look more at notability than human interest. In essence I agree, but are the two in certain cases not alike? Sure, Borat character landing on Eminem at mtv music awards is human interest not really notable (the hits on yahoo for that are astonishing) but is this the same? Is it notable to know someone survived a bullet in the head? It has happened. How about multiple black mamba bites? A fall from 500 feet? This is notable to me to a degree. I often watch the news to see what happens in real life that is potentially dangerous otherwise seemingly irrelevant. It makes one wiser. I for one do not look so much at the technical side of passing this WP or passing that WP, I think of this encyclopedia as "what will be noteworthy or interesting to the generations that follow..." and if I am the one taking a nasty fall maybe it is good to have in mind that 1% survive instead of certain doom. Forgive me this childishness, just a thought. Turqoise127 (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is notable that people have survived snake bites, falls from 500 ft, etc. but that in itself does not make the survivors themselves notable. Some of the rest of your comment sounds like you are confusing newsworthiness with encyclopaedic notability. Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as wikipedia is not a news repository. The lack of any coverage beyond the initial incident is proof that this event has had no lasting impact and this person is not considered notable. -- Whpq (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I do not necessarily think that a few stories in reliable sources make someone notable if there wasn't something notable there to begin with, but the number of highly respectable sources for this is sufficient. . We seem to have two rules now at WP. One, except for BLP, 2RS=N, regardless of how non-notable the event of person or event may have been in any normal meaning of the term. The other, applying to BLP only, is that it has to be more than one event, unless the event is particularly important. For everyone who quotes BLP above, do you realize you are saying that when he eventually dies of other causes he will become notable? If anyone thinks that actually makes sense, let them explain why.  I think this article is the poster child  for inconsistency of WP guidelines.   DGG (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really agree with that. An article (Articles for deletion/2007 Dean Farrar Street collapse) I did a small amount of work on was deleted as NOTNEWS despite having about 5 sources, 3 of which (I think) were well after the event had happened (and more were available from the time of the event), and there weren't really BLP concerns there. It just highlights the randomness of AfD really. (Bitter? Moi? ;-) ) I agree with your general point that the criteria are more stringent for BLP, and quite rightly so. Maybe the encyclopedia loses some good content, but it's probably better safe than sorry. Quantpole (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) erm, please could you explain how the BLP guidelines mean that when Alcides Moreno dies of natural causes he will become notable? I have been involved in several notable events in a non-notable manner, and there are reliable sources for my involvement in several non-notable events. Neither these individually, nor collectively mean that I am notable. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * DGG, I also disagree. The formulation 2RS=N doesn't mean that everything mention in those 2RS gets a separate article. As noted below in my opinion, it seems possible to me that the event (multiply covered in reliable sources) is notable, subject to NOTNEWS (I don't have a view). That is not to say, however, that the person, as opposed to the event, merits independent coverage. Bongo  matic  02:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But the key point of my argument is that this is all a matter a judgment, and should have had a full 10 days discussion. DGG (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What should have had a "full 10 days discussion"? This is article is undergoing a full discussion here at this page; and any issues you have with guidelines or policies should be taken up on the appropriate talk page or central discussion page where they will get noticed. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was arguing against the possibility of peremptory delete via BLP policy, or snow, as has sometimes happened here. DGG (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. This does seem borderline but is a whisper away from meeting notability. People like this often go on media tours and start a second career as a motivational speaker of sorts. If there is evidence of this story moving into the second act, as it were, then WP:Heymann keep. -- Banj e  b oi   23:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete: No matter how many newspapers covered it, it's still a WP:BLP1E Niteshift36 (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- As others have stated I see this event as being remarkable enough to qualify for an exemption. But, even if it weren't, policy suggests covering the event, not the person.  So, which article would this notable event be covered in?  I suggest there isn't one.  Geo Swan (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then create an article on the event. There are adequate sources above. See WP:SEP (it is certainly not my problem as I am not convinced of the notability of the event per NOTNEWS). Bongo  matic  04:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * would it satisfy you then if we changed the title? DGG (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't satisfy me if the title were just changed, because this article as it is written at the time of this comment is about the person not the event (as should any article at this title). So any article about the event you want to write will need different content and a different title, so you might as well start a new article. You would have to demonstrate though that the event is notable enough for an article, and I've not seen any evidence that it is (that is not to say there is no evidence, I've not looked and have no interest in looking). Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and adjust title and contents into an article about the event which everyone seems to agree is notable based on the very substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't agree that the event is notable enough for an article, nor that the coverage was "substantial". The event was newsworthy, and it is easily verifiable in multiple reliable sources, but neither of these facts make it notable. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - obvious case of WP:BLP1E, no matter how much of a short-term stir it raised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.