Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hardy Jackson (nomination 1)


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Closer's notes

The main argument here was notability and as such this debate turned on the numbers. As such there is no consensus. The percentage in favour of deletion rose only about 5% since the previous AfD.
 * About half of the participants supported deleting the article.
 * About a third supported keeping the article.
 * The remainder supported either keeping or merging.

Hardy Jackson
Already been up for deletion twice before, but both times consensus was hard to reach because of the post-Katrina immediacy of the article. To quote one user from the previous votes, "Millions of people lose loved ones in tragic circumstances every day. The fact that a TV crew happen to stumble upon Mr. Jackson does not make him notable... If Jackson gains notability, then we can add an article." Eight months later, with the benefit of hindsight, I'm not sure how Jackson is any different than the hundreds of other victims interviewed by the media. Unless he's done something of note that hasn't been covered, this is more memorial than article. Delete. Tijuana Brass 00:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Dang, I meant to prod this, but forgot that we've implemented the feature by now. Withdraw nomination (for now). Tijuana Brass 00:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Back to delete and merge. Tijuana Brass 03:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I'll second the prod. Roy  boy cr ash  fan  [[Image:Flag of Texas.svg|30px]] 00:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I really don't think the prod will succeed, given the 2 previous AFDs. It's clearly going to be a contentious point. - Hahnch  e  n 00:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I considered that, but if you review the AfD's, most of the votes in support of keeping it tended to either be with the expectation that he would remain notable (in a historical sense), or ignored the concept of Wikipedia not being used for memorials. We'll see where it goes. Tijuana Brass 00:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Just too many other people have been interviewed for him to be notable enough. Aplomado - UTC 00:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. individual is not notable. being a the subject of a story for a couple of media outlets does not make an individual notable. --Strothra 01:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Mr. Jackson was the human face of the Katrina tragedy for millions of people worldwide. His CNN interview was raw, haunting and heartbreaking. The story was picked up by news services throughout the world as shown by google . He belongs here as one of the notable victims of a historic event, like the Titanic survivors. -- JJay 02:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * comment. You still do not establish notability. His story was very briefly broadcast worldwide, yes, but only through media outlets which use emotional stories to raise their ratings.  What happened to him is unfortunate but that does not establish his notability.  The media exploited his bad fortune.  He is nothing more than a passing and media figure with nothing to show for it. Wikipedia is not a place for articles on victims of tragedies.  --Strothra 02:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion. -- JJay 02:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Strothra meant any disrespect by that, he was just trying to make a point. Saying that Jackson was "the human face of the Katrina tragedy for millions of people" is, well, hardcore POV. Speaking out of personal experience, I don't remember the guy at all outside of Wikipedia, and I was glued to a television for weeks after the hurricane, keeping up with it. He's one of the thousands of faces of victims of the storms, but not particularly notable. Memorials are good and well, but Wikipedia isn't for that. Tijuana Brass 03:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion too. There is no need to repeat the same arguments as I had already read the previous comments. Also please spare me the personal attacks. -- JJay 03:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize if you thought I was attacking you. That was not my intention.  I was simply attempting to point out that the media exploit many individuals for their tragedies and they have nothing to show for it.  This individual is no different than the many who have come before him.  The mass public forgets these individuals easily and grow tired of seeing these tragedies on TV and so the cameras move on to the next big story and the money stops flowing into these disaster areas when they no longer recieve widespread attention.  It's an unfortunate truth about society and there are quite a few studies on this trend.  --Strothra 05:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete and I don't see anyone personally attacking you JJay &rArr;    SWAT Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  03:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess that's just your hardcore POV speaking... -- JJay 04:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak delete if he's only notable for being covered on a TV news report. J I P  | Talk 05:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Human face of Katrina Tragedy doesn't impress me either. There are a lot too many people interviewed, but that doesn't make him notable. If he fought the odds in way a normal human won't and can be demonstrated by evidence, I will surely reconsider my view. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak-ish Keep: While being the subject of media sympathy articles doesn't normally make someone notable, "Hardy Jackson" Googles 25,000 hits, and "Harvey Jackson", a common mispelling, another 26,000.  --David.Mestel 07:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: While I respect your views on the article, please discuss on the basis of merits and not in terms of google results. Also note that a large majority of google results for "Hardy Jackson" aren't about the man being discussed here. The relevant results are even lower for Harvey Jackson, who infact is Busher Jackson. I would be happy if you can help improve the article enough to make it notable by all norms using relevant information by google, which will definitely lead it to surviving this AfD. From what your views look like, you have made your decision totally on basis of google results. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's just that the real issue here is whether the man is notable or not, and the large number of Google hits for his name indicates that he is. --David.Mestel 10:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please refer to observations by RGTraynor below. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, nn. --Ter e nce Ong 08:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable enough. Loom91 09:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable enough, but rework article on how his story was used as a focus by the media. That is what he is notable for. Metamagician3000 10:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT a memorial. Just zis Guy you know? 12:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how WP:Not applies since, as I'm sure you realize, Mr. Jackson is still alive. I also doubt that you are suggesting we delete articles like Leon Klinghoffer. -- JJay 12:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The only reason the Klinghoffer article avoids being deleted is because of the opera which was written about Klinghoffer. Otherwise he is not notable. --Strothra 14:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I completely disagree with that statement and I wonder to what extent you are familiar with the case. Klinghoffer's notoriety has nothing at all to do with the opera. He has been a symbol of the inhumanity of terrorism for over 20 years. Newsbank gives over 4,400 hits for Klinghoffer up to the present and very few discuss the opera. -- JJay 15:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Kinghoffer was merely one victim of "terrorism" and is not different from any other victim. His story was simply exploited by others as is the case here.  This fact in itself does not make him or this guy especially notable. And I would argue that your usage of individuals serving as "symbols" is POV.  Symbols for who exactly?  How are they a symbol?  What does it mean that they are a symbol?  Does the fact that they are a symbol change anything?  It's a loaded term.  --Strothra 15:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My usage??? What exactly are you talking about? If Klinghoffer is no different from any other victim, why don't we have articles on every victim of the WTC?
 * We did once, and it was very, very hard, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, to convince people that the horrific manner of their deaths didn't make them worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Eventually a comprimise was reached http://sep11.wikipedia.org/ . Just an FYI from an old-timer.  -- GWO
 * Where you see "exploitation" (another "loaded" term), I see a symbol of bigger issues. I am not alone in this. It is why we have articles on Ahmed al-Khatib, Leo Frank, Emmet Till, Michael Donald, Nick Berg, Matthew Shepard, Rachel Corrie, Kitty Genovese, Tank Man, Satar Jabar, Laci Peterson, Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, etc. None of these people won Nobel prizes, or wrote bestselling books, or were about to cure cancer. The media turns people into symbols. If you want answers to your questions, start here: Marshall McLuhan. -- JJay 18:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You make decent points but I do not hold them as wholly valid as establishing the notability of this alleged symbol. I simply do not believe that he is a "symbol."  My deletion vote stands. I do not believe that media sensationalism should be a reason to establish notability for an individual rather than the work of individuals themselves.  --Strothra 18:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Note that I never tried to get you or anyone else to change votes. I merely made a comment with my initial Keep vote. When you boil it down, my personal view is that Mr. Jackson for reasons completely out of his control is a sort of symbol of all the victims of Katrina, almost none of whom will ever get an article here. I guess I agree with CNN, which featured Hardy Jackson prominently in their "quarter century of newsmakers" round-up . If people want to see him as just some guy who watched his wife get swept away by the flood waters from the roof of his house, that's fine with me too. -- JJay 18:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * For which many of those people retain enduring fame. Kitty Genovese is a by-word for urban violence, and has been for forty years.  Leo Frank and Emmett Till have had more books written about them than this Jackson fellow has Google hits.  Laci Peterson remains in the tabloids today, and will no doubt do so for quite some time to come ... and so on and so forth.  Mr. Jackson's 15 minutes is up and he hasn't done anything since.  RGTraynor 18:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You make a good point, but keep in mind that Wikipedia is not necessarily supposed to be an encyclopedic reflection of popular culture. And, to be fair, much of the dust is still settling from Katrina, so the events and people that are best remembered about Katrina are still being established. Tijuana Brass 21:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Some do, some don't. What has Tank Man done recently? Or Ahmed al-Khatib and Satar Jabar? The fact is that the media creates or "exploits" victims and heros, sinners and saints. The reflection turning them all into symbols of one kind or another. I see Jackson as part of this group and my conception of this encyclopedia allows his inclusion. -- JJay 18:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't see any reasons for notability in the article, or in this discussion. Henning Makholm 13:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The fact that he's been covered in multiple interviews, including updates indicates that he's rather more important than an average passing interviewee.  Mangojuice 13:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, he's a minor player in a major story- just one victim out of thousands. Merge whatever is desired into one of the various Katrina-related articles.  This article exists only due to Wikipedia's tendancy toward recentism and over-coverage of anything and everything that's ever been on TV.  Friday (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I entirely agree; for one thing, has this guy been interviewed lately?  And who cares if he was interviewed a thousand times, about what exactly is he notable?  Did he ever do anything?  Was his plight distinctive as compared to other Katrina victims?  Beyond that, check this out ... when you do a directed Google search (removing the hockey connection and adding "Katrina") you don't get 26,000 G-hits.  You get one hundred and five unique hits; that's only three times as many as 'I' get.  That is nowhere remotely close to notable.  RGTraynor 15:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: expanding on RGTraynor's analysis, including Jackson's residence, "Hardy Jackson" + Biloxi gives 160 Ghits; including his famous wife "Hardy Jackson" + Tonette gives <50. - Rynne 18:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think 19,000 is a more reasonable number see below.  --MrFizyx 19:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep He was indeed the most famous victim of Katrina. (I'd settle for a redirect to the Hurricane Katrina article, but I think he is important enough to merit a mention there if this page is removed.) ProhibitOnions 15:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How are you judging the fame of the hurricane victims? The victims as a group are famous.  There were famous actors and senators who held property that was destroyed and thus they are victims.  This individual is hardly "famous".  Still, the vote is about notability and not fame.  This individual has not even met the standards of notability.  He did not impact the tragedy in any way and is not unique from the other thousands of victims. --Strothra 15:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for re-stating your opinion. However, I had already taken your similar comments above into account before deciding to vote Keep. ProhibitOnions 16:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 *  Delete , Keep or merge with Hurricane Katrina article in the Media involvement section. MikeBriggs 17:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Updated. Looked more into the issue. Change my vote to Keep or merge due to comments made and research conducted. MikeBriggs 20:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, or merge. It is part of the history of Katrina that the media was able to cover the human face of the tragedy.  The millions who saw this interview won't forget it soon.  While the external links in the article have gone stale, wikipedia can and should preserve this bit of the history.  --MrFizyx 18:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. He may have been a "face of the tragedy" but I don't think that makes him personally valuable to Wikipedia.  As RGTraynor and I have shown, directed googling doesn't collect more than 200 Ghits (see RGTraynor's delete vote and my reply above).  If Hardy had fleeting notablity at the time, it's certainly dissipated.  In fact, it appears that he fell out of the public eye within a couple weeks of Katrina; there are only scant stories about him with a dateline later than mid-September. - Rynne 18:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * comment1 I think your analysis is too restrictive.  Google “Hardy Jackson” Katrina –hockey and you get 19,300.  I jumped to 9 and 15 pages and don’t see any false positives.
 * Nice try. That 15th page (unique hit 140) is the last one.
 * comment2 It is a reasonably good point to say that individually he has not been very notable beyond the days of the tragedy.  He was, however, the subject of international news stories for several days.  Glancing through the Hurricane Katrina article I don't see much discussion of the victims (beyond the count of the dead).  The “media involvement” section is more about Fox News and Geraldo Rivera than the victims.  In the context of the disaster and people’s reactions to it, who is more notable?  Rivera or Jackson?  A decade from now when someone is wondering whether or not the story of someone’s wife saying “take care of the kids” and floating away, is really an urban myth, where will they find this content? --MrFizyx 19:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply to comment 1: Even with your suggested search, I'm still seeing <140 unique hits. Again, it seems that most of those 19k+ hits are repeated archives of BBS, CNN, or other news sites. - Rynne 20:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, your right. I missed the emphasis on "unique." --128.146.33.164 21:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)aka--MrFizyx 21:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There are some problems with both of our methods here for this case. If you use the settings suggested in WP:GT  It's Jackson 278, Geraldo 771(or more).  OK, OK, Geraldo wins on Google!  MrFizyx 22:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:Looks like this AfD will end in No Consensus. What bothers me is that a large majority of people are mistaking popularity for notability. Not all things notable are popular and not all things popular are notable. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

*Weak keep per David Mestel. JoshuaZ 04:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Delete After more thinking about it, he isn't notable enough for his own article even if he is notable. At best he should be merged to the Katrina article (possibly have a section of that article about media coverage in general?). JoshuaZ 04:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete His 15 minutes expired some time ago. Fishhead64 20:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mangojuice. Melchoir 04:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, ephemeral news story, one among many victims who were interviewed in the mass media. MCB 05:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete but merge/save partial info into Hurricane Katrina, or Hurricane Katrina survivors or Effects of Hurricane Katrina or similar article. -Visorstuff 18:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Widespread media coverage, widely regarded as symbolic of important natural disaster.  At worst, this should be merged back into some larger article. -Colin Kimbrell 19:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No longer encyclopedic. Martinp 15:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep' Verifiable, extensive news coverage means he meets WP:BIO as far as I'm concerned. --W.marsh 04:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.