Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JetBlue Flight 1052


 * 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   keep. This was always going to be a controversial one, following the DRV! However, the consensus appears to be just that the article should be kept. However, this is without prejudice against a renomination in a short while (I'm thinking a couple of weeks or so, rather than a couple of days!) if someone believes that the coverage during that period does not justify this being counted as notable as Wikipedia defines it. I would also recommend that this article be renamed to a more useful name: JetBlue are still using Flight 1052 (see tomorrow's flight details for JetBlue Flight 1052) --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

JetBlue Flight 1052

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I have closed the DRV on Articles for deletion/Steven Slater as "move to JetBlue Flight 1052 and relist on AfD." Please re-evaluate this article, now as a page about the event. I have not changed anything in the article, so if it is kept please rewrite it to reflect the event. I abstain. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I was in favor of deleting the Slater article, which came up for deletion just as the story was breaking. i think it's a bigger story than I thought it was then and I also think that listing the episode under this header rather than the name of the flight attendant makes inclusion less objectionable. This event has moved from a bizarre news event to become a part of popular culture, like it or not. Carrite (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - When it all said and done, this article is about a non-notable flight in which someone decided to quit his job at the end of it. If articles were created every time a non-notable person quit his job for non-notable reasons just because the event gets some press, then that would create a difficult precedent to over-come. Some wikipedia guidelines that would rule against this are Notability (events), WP:Recentism, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Massive coverage and commentary in the media = notability. WP:NOTNEWS does not mean that Wikipedia cannot have articles about topics that are reported in the news; it means we do not create articles about topics simply because they are reported in the news. Wherever the line is drawn, this story clearly crossed it. Propaniac (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment My understand is that there is an appeal of the deletion of the original 'Steven Slater' page that is still going on. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It was closed as a redirect to this page.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But isn't there an archieved record of that discussion? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See where it says at the top "I have closed the DRV"? Click "DRV." Propaniac (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, this is exactly the sort of thing that WP:NOT has in mind. There is a lot of short-term coverage which then quickly disappears, both from coverage and from memory. If there are still instances of significant coverage 6-12 months from now, an article may become appropriate then. Nsk92 (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - There needs to be something on an event that has received such massive coverage and was even the subject of a Republican National Committee commerical. While there would not have been an event without Slater, given the considerable afd brouhaha, it's best to let this article develop and evaluate later whether Slater gets his (he's hired a publicist and is following his lawyers advice to STFU about the event as long as he faces criminal charges). The original article was almost entirely about the event.Americasroof (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 *  weak keep I think it's still too soon to see how large of an impact this has over time, but at the moment coverage remains strong and it seems much more likely than not this event will be long standing. Hobit (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to pure keep.  makes it plain that A) this story has had an impact beyond the trivial and B) that a majority of Americans who fly have closely followed this story. Hobit (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Massive amounts of coverage in reliable sources from all over the world, coverage still ongoing after two weeks, has some small claims to lasting impact. I think this meets WP:EVENT. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't think this warrants its own article. Detail is still duplicated at the main article anyways JetBlue Airways so no reason to merge.Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is vastly more information here that is of interest to readers, and whose inclusion in the JetBlue Airways article would cause undue weight problems. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Global coverage, political impact, numerous angles and aspects. This is clearly not a routine event. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT was written for this sort of thing. Flash-in-the-pan news event that will certainly have no lasting impact.RadarsFinger (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Bit of a curio which got huge worldwide coverage, which I think would give it some impact and therefore notability. The article itself is well written and sourced. Worth keeping. scope_creep (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Non-notable airline incident. If Steven Slater isn't notable enough for his own article, then the event related to his escapades certainly isn't. Uncle Dick (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That certainly isn't what WP:BLP1E has to say. In fact it's advice is quite the opposite. Hobit (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This remains an non-notable incident.— Chris! c / t 00:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. People voting keep should have a look Can anyone siting "lasting impact" actually give even one notable and reliable example of lasting impact?  Any legislation that has resulted or is being planned?  Any effects on corporate bottom lines, or stock prices?  Even any documented effects on the everyday lives of either travelers or flight attendants or service staff in general?  This event is more appropriately covered, as it in fact already is, as a subsection of the JetBlue Airways article.  As for duration of coverage, I'm already seeing fewer and fewer stories, and some of those are either mentioning him in passing, or some actually saying "Time to move on, folks."  And this seems like it comes close to falling in the subsection WP:SENSATION. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? You think we should only cover things if it has an impact that significant?  We cover the careers of fairly minor athletes, the relationship of Wikipedia and Scientology, and a massive number of things more trivial than this.  If you hit "random article" I don't think you'd hit more than 3 in 20 that meet the guidelines you just specified.  There is clearly sustained coverage and that coverage is so well documented a political party is using it in its ads.  That's something pretty significant.  And I'll bet no more than 1 in 20 articles you'd hit randomly have that kind of breadth of recognition among the general population.  Hobit (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keeep If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to JetBlue. The incident is highly unusual, and the amusement element is what made the incident visible in the news media. However, it is not an incident which carries much impact beyond its interest as a news story. I cannot see any evidence that the incident has led to changes in the aviation industry, personnel policy, or safety procedures. I agree with the delete voters' citing of WP:NOTNEWS, but I am OK with having the incident mentioned on the JetBlue page, so a redirect seems reasonable. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is purely a vehicle to overcome BLP1E concerns on Steven Slater, a fifteen minuter. The individual is not notable enough to warrant their own article, inclusion in incidents on Jetblue is plenty and everything could be redirected to there. Despite the outcry, no one is trying to purge Slater from Wikipedia, just making sure the incident is represented correctly.  The fact the article has had to be named JetBlue Flight 1052 is further evidence of how ridiculous this is becoming as no-one is going to search for Slater with that term.  G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 08:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The title of the article is in accordance with WP:AVIMOS. Mjroots (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with the MOS, it's just a reflection of the fact that the article is a vehicle to avoid BLP1E for what could easily be covered in the JetBlue incidents section. G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 10:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment on NOT#NEWS "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. " Is this enduring?  At the moment it seems to be.  Certainly more so that many many other things we cover.  Is this routine coverage?  I'd have to say there was nothing routine about either the event or the coverage.   So I'm really not seeing how NOT#NEWS applies.  It is more targeted to things like box scores and who is dating who kins of things ("routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities").  Not things that see this level of sustained coverage. Hobit (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, well, more like a request. I read "recent coverage, lasting coverage" but I haven't heard a thing from MSM about this for almost a week. Does someone have a reliable source that is still discussing the event? I don't mean the Examiner gossiping about a reality show, or Forbes talking about how to keep your employees from blowing their cool. I'm asking for real, reliable coverage of the incident. I'm not even sure I would consider news of the court case relevant because that is guaranteed to go on for years simply because of our justice system. Where is all this recent coverage of the event? Padillah (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair question. At the moment I'm seeing news coverage as recently as 4 hours ago. .  Some examples in the last 24 are:, , and  each of which reference the event in one way or the other.  An www.examiner.com article discusses the reality show offer and  references the GOP ad.  All told I'm seeing 17 stories in the last 24 hours.  Hobit (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, the first link was a google news search for "Steven Slater" not an article. The second story starts with the phrase "As flight attendant Steven Slater slips into a media lull between his dramatic exit and a rumoured reality show..." even the articles you are citing are talking about how there's no more media coverage. The third link is to a story about several people quitting there jobs in rather dramatic ways. I personally think this is evidence of how non-notable this incident is - Everyone is doing it. The fourth link is to a news article about something else. I.e. "In what might be a move more courageous than folk-hero Steven Slater, she took matters into her own hands..." Yet more examples of other people doing the same thing as, or in this case better than, Slater. And the fifth link actually calls Slater "Pop Culture". The title of the article is "6 campaign ads that spoof pop culture" How does being explicitly labeled as Pop Culture mean the incident has staying power? These links in no way "cover" the incident. And if these are the best you could find out of the 17 you purport to have encountered in the last 17 hours, then I'm less than impressed. The Smiley face murder theory is from early 2008 and you can still find articles and papers written directly on the investigation. That's notable. Padillah (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it means that we're well past "routine news coverage" as spelled out in WP:NOTNEWS. What is "sustained coverage" these days?  To me it means that there is on-going coverage, even if just mentions, over a period of at least 4-6 weeks.  Do we have that?  Not yet, not enough time.  But if there are 17 articles published in the last 24 hours I think we're likely to get there.  And yeah, being in so strong in "Pop Culture" that a major party makes an ad based on you probably means that it's notable and worthy of an article. Hobit (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Still of evidance of any kind of lasting impact. News stories appear to have largley tried up. This can be coverd (and the material in the articel only repeats) whats in the jetblue artciel already.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 17 stories in the last 24 hours is "dried up?". That's a pretty high bar and I doubt that even 5% of our articles ever had coverage like that. Hobit (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Many of which are trivil in the extream (a one line mention in an artciel about another persons heroism, who interestingly does not have a wik page) they are not about him, they are about other incidents (or persons) and just mention him. Or he is mentioned in things like college newpapers. What we would need in notable coverage to establish this is more then a silly season story.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're saying that every event worthy of a Wikipedia article must be covered in the media, in detail, constantly and in perpetuity, whether or not anything new related to the event has actually happened, that's ridiculous and I doubt any event could possibly meet such a standard. Becoming an ongoing point of reference, on the other hand, is absolutely evidence of notability. Propaniac (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not in deatil but it hato be rather more then saying that A is not as heroic a B. It has top be more then a throw away referance. That the point its one event th had any impact. Its not changed anything. Its being discused soely in relatio to hte one incident. Thats the ppoint he is famous for one (minor) incident. Where is the anyliisis of the incident? In factg the majority of coverage is about hijm, not the incidetn. The incidetn seem secondry. So he is notable for being part of an event that he is more notable then.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article should refeclt the whole story, not just give Mr Slaters version nof the evetn (which has been widley challenged) any thijng else would be haigiograthy. We should not have tribute pages. Now all material (apart from Mr Slaters version) is unimportant fluff. What is the point of this artciel if its not about the event, and everthing surrounding it? All versions of the event, not just his.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @Propaniac and Hobit, the article needs to be about the subject, not just mention it. Heck one of the links above mentions the Old Spice Guy, does that mean he's notable? No. The [article on MSNBC] might but the off the cuff mention of his being spoofed does not qualify as coverage. Padillah (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You need articles that are about the subject in order to establish notability. But, I repeat that it is ridiculous to assert that for an event to be notable enough to justify an article, you need continual detailed coverage until the end of time. The fact that new developments become less frequent after a period of time, and that the media does not continue writing new articles when there are no new developments, does not mean that the event wasn't notable. What you can expect from a notable event is that it is still referenced in the public consciousness. I doubt there have been any recent articles about anything in Category:2009 controversies, let alone events from years before that; that does not mean that the Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy, or any other item in that category, does not justify an article. Propaniac (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Old Spice Guy ads are certainly notable. Their coverage has been as broad and wide as one could hope and many folks in advertising have claimed that they are the first major ad campaign to be truly successful in utilizing "new media".  But ignoring that, does prompting a study on air travel count as "significant impact"?  If so  would certainly be one.  I really don't get why people have a fear of documenting truly significant events just because they are "pop culture".  We cover all sorts of things that have less of a reach than this.  A majority of flying Americans have closely followed this story for goodness sake (see previous study).  That's a lot of folks to "closely" follow anything.   Hobit (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum The Old Spice Ad stuff has its own article.... The Man Your Man Could Smell Like... Hobit (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * SIgnificant, where is the in depth anaylysis? All we have are articels about the man. There is almost no initerviews with passengers (the other witnases) where is the anyalysis of the effects using the chute might have had (there is a bit, but no follow ups). Where is the analysis of Jetblues actions (and there has been some questions raised, and largley ignored). It is clear from the coverage that there is no notability about the event, its all about the person. Indead even the fact that allmost all (90%) of the witneses contradict all or part of his story has been largely ignored in the coverage. There has been no indepth coverage of the event, just a publicity machine kicking in to present his side of the story only.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lots of analysis about the reactions to this event. Lots and lots and lots including prompting a fairly large study.  I think that's pretty solid. Hobit (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Endagering life, how where is the analysis of how his actions might have endagerd life? Apparently it put the airplane out of action, for how long, why, what impact did this have on the airline, on the aiurport, were any flights delayed, how did this affect the profits of already financialy weakend airlines? Why did Jetbue wait so lon g to inform teh authorities and why were not so unco-operative? You are right we have lots avbout the reaction to the event, nothing about the event. There are huge anansered questions, the reason, becasue this was an 'and finaly' human interest story that was never intended (except by those who alerted the press before the police) then 15 minutes of fame. Moreover your indepth sutdy is not indepth about the incident.Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete/redirect I've tossed in my mind between delete and keep on this, but at the end of the day, coverage isn't enough - a point forgotten by quite a few of the keep !votes. WP:EVENT (and WP:NOTNEWS) require impact as well. In my view, this is high coverage but very low impact, per Sjakalle above. It has had some impact (see Hobit above) but that impact can be dealt with proportionately in the relevant JetBlue article. That the flight article now has an exhaustive timeline of "events" is indicative of how disproportionate a separate article is.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Enough time has passed to measure staying power, and it seems that Mr. Slater's antics have no encyclopedic value. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - It is clear, that from the analysis of the articles about flight attendant burnout referencing this case, that Slater's actions are of a high encyclopedic value and must be catalogued by Wikipedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP passes WP:NOTNEWS. This incident has had a lasting impact, with articles still being written about it. Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * DELETE despite the solid arguments posted by Hobit and Propanic above, I don't feel the article adds anything to the encyclopedia that the blurb in the current JetBlue article doesn't. It's longer and uses more words (and the timeline, but that's just fluff) but ultimately doesn't say anything that isn't said in the blurb. So, after almost three weeks of coverage we can still very easily sum up the incident in a blurb, I don't think can support a stand-alone article. Padillah (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably true, but A) I feel the current coverage in the parent article is already full of undo weight and should be a LOT shorter (this is 10% of JetBlue?) and B) there is a strong expectation that with the legal issues and reality show there will be stuff that certainly doesn't belong there. Hobit (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. A strong case for this event's inclusion can be made from WP:EVENT.  It has already had a measurable impact, with a Republican party commercial based on the event and a reality tv-show being offered to Slater.  The event has also served as a proverbial lightening-rod and reference-point, inspiring discussion of a wide range of contemporary social issues including the state of the economy (with wage stagnation, job insecurity, etc.), conditions of workers in service-industry jobs, the current state of air-travel (including the stress resulting from all the post 9/11 security measures), and sexual orientation/homophobia. Much in-depth analysis relating to these issues has already been published, for example, , and .  Per WP:PERSISTENCE, there's been significant "duration of coverage."  The event happened two and a half weeks ago, and it's still being covered.  With the trial set to start next month, there's no reason to believe there won't continue to be more coverage in the future.  The event clearly meets WP:DIVERSE with very significant and in-depth coverage in many different parts of the world.  A Taiwanese TV station even made an animation based on the event.  And, as I've already stated, there has been very significant WP:EVENT.  Finally, WP:EVENT states that: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable."  So even if this event's lasting effect has not yet been completely proven, there is still no reason the article should be deleted, in light of the overwhelming diversity, persistence, and depth of the coverage that this event has already received. -Helvetica (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and avoiding thinking that recency means things don't deserve coverage. We regularly cover single events of note, e.g., the 1981 Ketchup as a vegetable controversy.  That was just as silly "flash in the pan" an event as this, but these things are remembered for their uniqueness forever.--Milowent • talkblp-r  14:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to JetBlue and merge a thumbnail of the content, per Sjakkalle. Also, since this event was news predominantly because of what one person did, we're going to end up with an event page that's almost exclusively about a person who is otherwise not notable, which could present some WP:BLP problems. If it's kept, it really needs some trimming -- the timeline section is completely superfluous, IMO. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 14:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * delete or redirect. This isn't some enduring thing and the 15 minutes are nearly up. Spartaz Humbug! 15:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Why is that so many of these delete comments seem to sound like they have a WP:I don't like it rationale? The article is 17K at this point and it has 33 references (it could have been even longer with more references if it weren't for aggressive reverts).  It addresses the complex issues of opinions of what happened.  It also establishes worldwide notability from Taiwan coverage to a Republican National Committee ad to specifics on a job offer.  The six sentence item on JetBlue is oversimplistic (and in my opinion bordering on libelous in its current wording).  If it were fleshed out on JetBlue there would be WP:Undue weight issues.Americasroof (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dunno, maybe its because no-one will give two hoots about this in 5 years - if they even remember it- and that I thought I was contributing to an encyclopedia not an aggregation of tabloid trivia. Spartaz Humbug! 16:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! I just took a look at WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and what did I find there?  "Delete as trivia. – NoTriviaHere  01:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)"  Also, it's pure crystal-ball to say that nobody will care about it or remember it in five years. Helvetica (talk) 08:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hobit. Ongoing, independent, RS coverage passes GNG. Jclemens (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or transwiki to Wikinews - Changing the article title to JetBlue Flight 1052 skirts past the BLP1E issues, but creates other problems. The flight number itself does not point singularly to this event.  It's ok to use flight numbers for articles about crashes, because generally those flight numbers are retired and never used again after a crash.  However, there is a new JetBlue Flight 1052 probably once every day.  Which particular flight does this article describe?  What if another notable event happens during a subsequent JetBlue 1052?  Will we have to move this article to JetBlue Flight 1052 (August 9, 2010)?  Anyway, problems with the article title aside, this article clearly runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWS.  News sources are ok to use as sources for information, but they do not necessarily confer notability.  Notability is not temporary.  In a year's time, no one will remember this person or this event.  An encyclopedia is not about documenting isolated news stories.  Now, if Steven Slater goes on to host a notable reality show and gets his own talk show or something, then we can start a bio article on him and mention the details of his outburst.  At this point, however, this is just a single non-notable event.  Everyone needs to calm down and wait for this to become notable before starting an article.    Snotty Wong   comment 17:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "In a year's time, no one will remember this person or this event." - I am not convinced of that, because there are now analysis articles about how flight attendants snap, and there are articles analyzing the roles of flight attendants. This event is becoming a case study on the roles of flight attendants. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or transwiki to Wikinews as per Snottywong's rationale. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per international coverage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:EVENT v WP:I don't like it. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:EVENT v WP:I don't like it ref WP:DONTBEAHATER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.0.115 (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I do not believe it is possible to transwiki to Wikinews. Wikinews' policy is that all reported news must be current, and besides there is no corresponding entry at Transwiki log for Wikinews. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As we should be following WP:EVENT, as it is to that guideline that the appropriate section in WP:NOT links to, i'll be focusing my argument on that. The part that states "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards" is clearly indicative of this event, as it was publicized in almost all (if not all) major newspapers in the world. And it has certainly been analyzed afterwards. Another reason for notability would be the "Geographical Scope" of the coverage and there is certainly enough diversity in the available sources. And, though the subject is not breaking news anymore, that section does state "Articles about breaking news events —particularly biographies of participants— are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary."


 * As can clearly be seen by a Google search for the past day, there is still continuing coverage, so it was not really a "15 minutes of fame" scenario. I also believe that this news article sums things up appropriately. Silver  seren C 03:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. Fails WP:EVENT and more specifically its subsection WP:SENSATION. While this event gained coverage during its news cycle, it is hardly encyclopedic as an event that will have long-term memory or effect. moreno oso (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Delete per nom"??? Ay mi moreno!...Didn't you see the that nominator abstained? -Helvetica (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The diff is the article still is nominated for deletion. Procedurally, my iVote follows. moreno oso (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP and move to Steven Slater
 * Notability for sport and athletic individuals requires only one event WP:ATH, WP:ATHLETE, WP:NSPORT, WP:NSPORTS. The original deletion of Steven Slater was a misinterpretation of WP:BLP1E which applies the one event rule only if a "person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". Steven Slater is not a low profile individual: in an Angus Reid Public Opinion poll of 773 American adults found 52% were following the Steven Slater story "very closely" or "moderately closely". 57% had an opinion as to whether he was justified (25%) or not (32%). If sports notability allows Wikipedia articles upon unknown Ukrainian junior tennis players noteworthy for only winning one competition such as Kateryna Kozlova then Wikipedia brings itself into disrepute as a source of information if it does not cover an individual whose story was followed in August 2010 by over half the US population.
 * Steven Slater notability goes beyond the events on JetBlue Flight 1052 as he and his story has become a vignette. Change the airline name, and the flight number and destinations and interest would remain; remove from the story taking two beers and going down the evacuation slide and no one would care. Steven Slater is a notable Take this job and shove it story about human experience  not a notable air incident.
 * The Steven Slater story has been raised in diverse contexts including customer relations industrial relations employment termination and status of workers in a recession. This media coverage is on going and given these issues are permanent important concerns are unlikely to stop. Given the dramaticness and notoriety of the Steven Slater story it can reasonably expected to be adopted as an instruction related talking point  in education and training in these fields.
 * Steven Slater is a social phenomena with a dozen plus songs political ad folkhero status and creation of a new word in the English language. A common explanation of his notability is that it resonates with conditions faced by workers in a recession.
 * Failure to include Steven Slater as an article is a judgment about these worker experiences --that they are insufficient grounds for noteworthiness in an encylopedia. This goes against WP:N.
 * Most of the above deletes seem to reflect -- and I apologize for making this observation and only make it because I think it is at the core of this debate-- a focus on  the physical events on JetBlue Flight 1052, while being indifferent to the  enormous, empathic, in depth and diverse social attention given to them as a noteworthy human story.--LittleHow (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The story is not followed by half the population of the US (for a start how many people in the US fly?) its is followed by 330 odd people (who fly, not unreasonable givine its a flying incident).
 * We cannot specualte on why might have been, but I would say that if this had not been on an airliner (but had say been in a call centre) no one would have given a hoot. Moreover as the press and internt were informed first there is also the issue of whether or not this would have been as notable if he had been arrested before his side of the story got out wouold he have been suchg a hero (there is also now the srong possiiblity that his whole story is a concoction).
 * The media coverage is just that, it does not establish any lasting impact (and in fact the incident itself and the questions it raises have been largley ignored, he is the story not what he did). Also much of your civerage is a week old, aroung the time of the incident. We also cannot say at this time what hte impact will be, but given the increasing evidacen that this was not a story about a worker pushed too far its doubtfull if this will be used as anything. The industry I ssupect will soon try to move on.
 * Songs and other pop culture referances do not establish ntability (and again this all looks like fairly old stuff), its a nwes story so it will have had some millage that does not mean its notable. Also we still have the fact that this refects peoples reaction to the first flurry of news (and still contains no real analysis of the actual incident but is mealry a personel interest story) not any iindepth analysis of the incodetn and its impact.
 * Sorry but non inclusion does not violate nuetraility. Especlaiy as mu8ch of the above is based on a biased and now almost certaionly dishonest version of events (inclusion of that would violate nuetraility).
 * To be notable a person must be part of a notable event, if the event is not notable (and it appears tp have been largley ignored) the he is not. If I stub my toe and it gets news coverage that does not make me t of a notable event.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole point of WP:N is that coverage is notability. That is, it was noted.  This clearly meets the requirements of WP:N in much the same way the sun meets the requirements of "a hot object".  The question at hand is if the event is non-the-less something we shouldn't cover because it's "just news" (WP:NOTNEWS) or doesn't meet other inclusion guidelines (in this case WP:EVENT).  General notability is really not in debate and your arguments would seem to be a version of WP:JNN.  That can be a fine IAR argument, but such arguments are generally accorded less weight than a policy-based argument. Hobit (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And have I asked has the event (rather then the person) actualy has any analysis, no (and in fact jetblue have complained about the lack of coverage of the danger inherant in the chute incident for example, claiming the incident has not been taken seriously).The coverage has all been infact trivial (even at the time, and has become increasingly trivial as time has gone on) concentrating on the Humans intertest angle at the expense of actual coverage of his actions and thier implications. No the event has not been noticed its been largley ignored (to an extent that some of the coverage has been of the 'I did not see it but know Mr Slaters version is true' veriety).Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Trivial coverage is making an aside in an article otherwise about another subject. There have been entire articles written about the Steven Slater incident and what it signifies. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Hobit (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also if a TV program aired in the US and 200,000 people whatched it would not be a notable program it would be a flop. Yes the inernet (and facebook) has a far bigger 'audiance' then US TV (in the US) yet less then this is considerd notalbe. This is just plain daft facebook has 500 million active users, this is less then 1% of the total.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "200,000 people whatched it would not be a notable program it would be a flop." Source? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep We often have these silly debates over whether clearly notable events should get coverage or not. They should, even if they were primarily driven by the actions of one person. The intent behind BLP1E is to protect low profile individuals from being subjected to a full biographical treatment, including the otherwise private parts of their lives. It's not intended to censor all biographical coverage of people primarily (and widely) known for one event, and it never was meant that way. Gigs (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This comment also raises a good issue involving WP:WL, and this process seems full of wiki-lawyering. WP:WL says that the intent and principles behind policies have far more import than following the verbage of a policy literally. It seems to me that those articulating for delete are relying on literal interpretations of various policies without regard to the intent and principles behind any such policies. I wish all the brain power going on here was instead put into the article, and finding a good name for it, as the current name is not at all helpful. WP:WL out of control, WP:They just don't like it. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To those who consider this is not worthy because of claims that there is no fresh news on the issue and it has dried up. Has there been any news on Jesus walking on water today? Shall we delete? AfD Jesus? WP:They just don't like it. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, lack of ongoing coverage for a significant period of time in terms of one event articles is actually a part of policy. But, regardless, coverage is still ongoing, so it doesn't really matter. Silver  seren C 19:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree on coverage ongoing (and voted Keep), but you helped make my real point which is the wikilawyering going on by the delete camp. Reliance on policy read literally. As there is no ongoing news coverage of some guy walking on the sea of Galilee, we should now start an AfD Jesus. WP:WL is designed to stop such nonsense propositions as AfD Jesus by stressing the import of principle and intent over the literally reading being touted here. It's like an evangelical army... WP Policies are not meant to be read verbatim (and selectively as is the case here). Anyway there is always Ignore all rules. This article is still here, has had two AfDs, and an appeal, and short of ArbCom enforcing it's godhood you can bet this article is just not going to go away. The People Speak. There will never be consensus to delete, so any admin deleting this article will be relying on policy, to which an editor will probablly respond with Ignore all rules and create it with another name even more inappropiate than Steven Slater > JetBlue Flight 1052. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is the attentional system of the human species. It the collective source of what will be noteworthy. But it is written by humans and we each live and organize our minds differently: some tightly with a lawyer-like set of rules about what is notable, some  with "ignore all the rules" inspiration. One puts  logic over  chaos, the other diversity and potential richness over order. Wikipedia needs both,  and both will always cause  tensions.--LittleHow (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete It's just a news story that will be quickly forgotten, not an encyclopedia-worthy event. Peacock (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I !voted delete in the AfD for Slater's page; while he isn't notable enough for his own entry, this event seems to be. Continuing coverage, lasting effect. The thing as a whole is notable.  — fetch ·  comms   03:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The view from Page view statistics Wikipedia viewers overwhelming seek Steven Slater see here and not JetBlue Flight 1052 see here. The ratio is usually around one in 400 in favor of Steven Slater. The numbers are so few, that less individuals searched for JetBlue Flight 1052 on August 17 (the last day for which figures exist) than commented on the JetBlue Flight 1052 deletion page for that day. Does Wikipedia exists as an encyclopedia service for people out there in the real world, or for editors lost in their wikilawyering? --LittleHow (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On the up side, we'll end up with a redirect to this article from his name. Should get the job done. Hobit (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that the interest that drives the noteworthiness of Steven Slater lies in him not the incident on JetBlue Flight 1052 which was merely the occasion for his notability.--LittleHow (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is clear from editorials and news articles that this case is no longer news. It is now a notable scenario. All "delete" rationales above hinging on WP:NOTNEWS clearly have no merit. Steven Slater's name is now in the public record. I will find all of the analysis and build it up. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I missed it, did this plane crash? Was it involved in some sort of hijacking incident? Why in God's green Earth is this article titled after the flight number. This is usually reserved for notable flights in which people have died violently. The article is disrespectfully titled.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the current consensus on titling style for aviation events, if the media doesn't give the event a specific name and it is wished for the article to be titled after the event, then the title must be the flight number and company. If you have an alternative title in mind, feel free to propose it. Silver  seren C 22:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if that was the consensus then, someone must have forgot to add it to the guideline, because that is not what it says.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Reluctant keep, changed from Delete at the last AFD (for Steven Slater). Now that the initial storm of heated argument that follows any article created on a current news story has blown over, I think we can judge the subject more clearly, and in this case the subject is unquestionably notable. Given the length, wide reach and depth of coverage, WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. Yes, I still think the amount of coverage this pretty trivial story got is ridiculous - and I think the length of our article on it is faintly ridiculous as well - but it clearly struck a chord with many people, and in any case, our job is not to judge the media. Our job is to judge notability, and by any objective standard, this article passes the test. Robofish (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the article name, it's not ideal, but WP:BLP1E discourages an article on the person unless he's clearly notable in his own right. Perhaps another alternative can be found - 2010 JetBlue air rage incident, maybe? Robofish (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E only advises against an article on a person where a "person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" -- which is not the case for Steven Slater who has employed a publicity promoter. It is in my opinion inappropriate encyclopedically to link Steven Stater to JetBlue Flight 1052 since this was only the occasion not the reason for his notability which was not an aircraft incident but a story that happened on a particular flight. The incident was a "key" that became a story because it fitted, turned and opened a "lock" of previously undiscussed and unnoted employment stresses suffered by service workers (such as cabin staff) in a recession where they cannot Take this job and shove it. To focus on the key (the incident) and ignore its turning of the narrative lock (employment stresses in a recession) is be blind to why Steven Slater is so very notable.
 * If you doubt this, why does this piece ARE YOU BEING SERVED? in next week's The New Yorker contain no words mentioning the place of the incident "JetBlue Flight 1052" but details the noteworthiness of his "emergence as a “working-class hero,” after he threw his job away with a tirade against passengers and a slide down an exit chute. ... subject of numerous tribute songs and his Facebook fan page drew more than two hundred thousand people—suggested just how frustrated employees are with stagnant pay, stressful working conditions, and obnoxious customers."--LittleHow (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article also says that his 15 minutes of fame are almost over (essentially not the first source to say that this is in effect a flash in the pan story). Also the article is more about Dave Carrol then Steven Slater. In fact the Steven Slater mention is trivial. It also says that “Still, there was something a little surprising about the adulation. After all, the public comprises customers as well as workers,” Not the first source to question why he is so famous, indication that not everyone considerd the incident impoprtant. And I again say that 200,000 people is not a lot, its less then 1% of face book.
 * Also BLP1E says 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, we should generally avoid having an article on them. He is only notable for the one event, the fact that the one evetn has caused a cord to be srruck with less then 1% of the interents population does not alter the fact he is still only notable for the one event (throwing a wobbly and leaving his job). There is no indication he is famous for anyhing else.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fame does not equal notability nor does The New Yorker piece stating his "fame may be winding down"  equal "flash in the pan".
 * The notability of Steven Slater is the main topic in the leading first paragraph. The statement “Still, there was something a little surprising about the adulation" is statement that he has surprising notability not that he lacks it.
 * To state "Not the first source to question why he is so famous" is in fact to state he is famous (but to be puzzled about it) not that he lacks fame. The sources of his notability are diverse : it goes far beyond 200,000 people on facebook -- a measure that might be questioned -- as there are 12+ songs about him,  the use of his name as a word "to pull a Slater", a political ad based around pulling a slater, a New York Times piece about his status as a folk hero,  endless pieces about industrial relations, customer relations, civility, and the blight of workers in a recession that dare not do a take this job and shove it.
 * WP:BLP1E is misinterpreted. Single events can be proper grounds for notability such as with individuals in sport. BLP1E is to stop articles on low-profile people incidentally involved in events such  George Holliday who videotaped Rodney King being beaten by LAPD officers (and whose acquittal lead to the 1992 Los Angeles riots). It is not a grounds to stop articles on people who have become noteworthy by diverse sources and in diverse ways.--LittleHow (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That was beautiful. *applauds* Silver  seren C 15:50, 31 August 2010 (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.