Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Smeaton (baggage handler)


 * 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 no consensus; hard to judge with so many anons and SPA's with such slanted opinions. Sr13 05:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

John Smeaton (baggage handler)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * NOTE: Closing admin please note the number of "anonymous IP's", unsigned comments, and obvious socks voting on this project. (E.g. the only edits of User:Scottybarr, User:MsTreex2 are to keep this article.  While User:Barryferguson6 User:Frank Booth have less than 5 edits each---and many of those are vandalism. There are multiple other accounts voting with less than 50 edits and histories of vandalism as well.)Balloonman 00:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As an "anonymous IP" with far more than 50 edits and an edit history rivalling "Balloonman" himself, I urge the closing admin not to discount IP address users outright, but instead to judge on the merits of their arguments. 62.31.67.29 08:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. There's clearly a bunch of people on here for whom this is their first experience of Wikipedia, but that's because W has listed John Smeaton ahead of other Internet sources - that's a good thing, not a bad thing. Doesn't make their arguments invalid. 82.40.183.118 11:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Normally I wouldn't discard anonymous IP's... but in this particular case, where there is no doubt of socks... care should be taken to identify the legitimate arguments with legitimate points from the puppets. Especially when outside sources are actively soliciting people to come here to vote on this issue.---a clear violationg of WP:CANVASS.Balloonman 04:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This is just media hype, not the stuff of Wikipedia. I admire what the guy did, but this is not the place for such an article. Lynbarn 20:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC) – Gurch 21:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. A year from now, nay six months from now, no one will remember his name.  Postcard Cathy 22:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe delete it in six months, then ? He may yet become an internet phenomenon, despite the language barrier! Who can tell how the future history will work out ? Who had heard of Grace Darling the next day ? Wouldn't it be great if the little dutch boy who stuck his finger in the dyke was remembered by name ? Almost certainly not Hans Brinker ! IMHO WP:HERO guidelines like WP:PORNBIO would be great for the public good ! 195.137.93.171 23:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep* While topical and newsworthy it is also a credible article illustrating the public's reaction to an atrocity. It is what differentiates each individual event and will be worthwile for future readers to see how the Glasgow public reacted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.206.235.134 (talk • contribs).


 * Delete, and add a sentence to the Glasgow incident article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and there will never be enough material in the foreseeable future to write a notable biography on this chap or a separate article on his actions. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

And there are notable biographies for Chuck Norris and Randy Constan ? Comments on are already making references to these guys. 195.137.93.171 23:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep* It needs tidied up a lot but the man deserves an entry as he has become somewhat famous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.69.73.190 (talk • contribs).
 * Delete. One incident does not bestow notability. Now, if he could prove he never misplaced luggage... Clarityfiend 00:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete although he can be mentionned in the main article of the events.--JForget 00:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would you want to delete this? The man is a hero. There are much more trivial pages on wikipedia. Surely John deserves this honour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.78.193 (talk • contribs) — 82.40.78.193 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site. He'll be a trivia question in a fortnight or two. -- Finngall   talk  02:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - who? Internet phenomenon? What? Sorry, but this is WP:CRYSTAL at its best - if he becomes an Internet phenomenon, then someone will write about him and provide us reliable sources. As it is, fails WP:BIO. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 03:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing my mind; merge anything not already there to the article on the incident. We don't have articles for the other people who are getting splashes of media attention on this, and that would seem the logical place for it to go. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 21:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge his name into the Glasgow incident article.. That's where people would look for info anyway, not at his own page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.184.198 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep* won't someone think of the children? Rolf Mayo 08:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep* this guy has a tribute site and on many internet talk boards he has achieved a level of notoriety. So long as wikipedia lists internet phenomena then it should document this Barryferguson6 09:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC) — Barryferguson6 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep* he is an Internet meme and has received extensive media coverage on the TV and in local, national and international newspapers. The tribute website has taken an extroadinary amount of traffic, and interviews with him are playing on BBC, Sky, ITV and CNN at the moment. As well as his actions, there is the aspect of the media coverage and commentary concerning him of lasting interest. jkirriemuir 11:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep* Of all the witnesses to the incident, John Smeaton is by far the most televised, most vocal, and most animated. When future historians look back, his numerous accounts will help form a basis for their understanding one way or another. But most of all, he attempted to pacify the attackers, and was therefore a direct participant in the chain of events, rather than a bystander. This alone means he was involved in the outcome and should be listed either independently, or merged with the larger Glasgow incident page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.61.49.4 (talk • contribs).


 * Keep :
 * Of interest to social historians as an example of an ordinary citizen's attitude when facing direct confrontation with terrorists.
 * As of thursday 5th July, Google now showing over 12,000 results for query '"John Smeaton" baggage' ('baggage' added to distinguish him from the historic John Smeaton).
 * Todd Beamer (the 'let's roll' guy) gets a Wikipedia article. JS's role in this terror attack is similar to TS's role on September 11th. Would JS's article be up for deletion if he was American? 82.40.183.118 11:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, minor aspect of failed attack by apparently incompetent would-be terrorists. --Dhartung | Talk 10:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep* Wikipedia contains details of all Members of the Scottish Parliament, some of whom have never been directly elected but are 'list' MSPs. None of them has done more for the reputation or safety of the people of Scotland than John Smeaton. If you remove him, you should remove all of those nobodys as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk • contribs)


 * Keep* The man risked his life to protect other people. He has done more than most people on Wikipedia and deserves his place. To talk about removing the article is ridiculous. People like this should be held in high esteem and not pushed aside due to peoples 'Wiki snobbery'. We need more people like this in the world and it can only do us all well to hear about people like this.  (First time Ive tried to edit a page.) User-  Matt McLeod — 82.41.152.150 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

keep this page! There are all sorts of useless crap on here - this guy braved his life and who knows what could have happened if he hadn't nutted the guy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nony88 (talk • contribs) — Nony88 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Merge*(See Note..) He did something remarkable in the face of todays terrorism challange.He showed that a ordinary person does make a difference in the big picture and deserves a SERIOUS mention with connection to this incident.***NOTE:If you decide to give the terrorist their own page then I will change my MERGE to a KEEP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.122.217.142 (talk • contribs) — 192.122.217.142 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep It is the complete opposite of media hype, he is a real person who did what came naturally to defeat the ends of terrorism and is quickly becoming a national hero. I can assure you that a long time from now people will still be talking about Mr Smeaton and the way he handled himself in a tricky situation and in the resulting media glare. I suggest that all of you who think his page should be deleted are just snobs who don't want a working class Scot cluttering up your nice tidy American encyclopedia! Well real life is NOT nice and tidy! How many cartoon characters have a Wiki page? Additional comment - I notice my, and several other comments have been tagged as being the only entry we have made. I have never felt so strongly about a Wiki article that I felt I had to edit a page, and I'm sure the others feel the same! Its not exactly the most user friendly experience you could have on the internet, is it?MsTreex2 12.35, 3 July 2007 (BST) — MsTreex2 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. Wikipedia is not an American encyclopedia and does not intend to be biased towards the US. Notability is how we determine whom and what should be included, not personal feelings. Also, working class people are inevitably going to be less notable as individuals than others as they are the least likely to have had reliable published sources about them.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 12:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep* The level of reaction to Smeaton both in the greater Glasgow area and through internet fan sites make him worthy of inclusion as an internet phenomenon. I am a Glasgow resident - this man's appearances on the various news channels are amongst the most discussed topics related to these attacks. As for internet reaction, one need only note that less than 4 days since the incident we not only have several sites, but at latest count 600 pints had been advance-purchased for Smeaton at the Glasgow Airport Holiday-Inn bar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.44.196.190 (talk • contribs)


 * Wkepedia can NOT be serious. This page MUST be kept. It's an inspiration to humanity in general and to Democratic values in particular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.195.139 (talk • contribs)


 * Keep* This is very simple...if Wikipedia maintains a section on "Internet Phenomena" then, since Smeaton has become just that, the article should stay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Booth (talk • contribs) — Frank Booth (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep* In the first terrorist attack of it's kind on Scotland, John Smeaton played a pivotal role in the way events panned out. Without his intervention, who is to say what would have gone on to happen. While others stood and watched, this hero put the safety of others before his own well-being and confronted a crazed terrorist. There is absolutely no doubt that John Smeaton deserves his place in Wikipedia and it would take a cold heart to delete him. Rogue Trader 13.22, 3 July 2007 (BST)
 * Delete' While I admire his actions, he's still not notable, and a footnote to the incident at best. Wildthing61476 12:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep* John Smeaton has *already* become recognised across the web for his actions, and his approach to the situation shows that the ordinary citizen *can* stand up to criminal behaviour and make a difference.Croman mac Nise / Crommán mac Nessa / Cromán mac Neasa 12:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Keep* Why is this even up for discussion? If Guy Goma merits a Wikipedia page (which he does) for giving us a giggle, then so does John Smeaton. More so, in fact, since he made us laugh during very testing times. Besides, if you pull the plug, Sir Smeaton will be knocking at the front door of Wikipedia Mansions before you know it, eager to banjo, malky and/or chib the person who hit the big button marked 'delete'. I'm off to buy him a beer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.61.49.4 (talk • contribs).
 * I've struck this comment as it is 194.61.49.4's second contribution to this debate. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've unstruck the comment, but changed the "vote" from "Keep" to "Comment". People are allowed to contribute as much as they like to the debate, they're only prohibited from "voting" multiple times. 62.31.67.29 08:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep* There are thousands of people on Wikipedia far less deserving of their own page than John Smeaton. The guy did help prevent a terrorist attack through his bravery. If we can have Wikipedia pages on terrorists that try these atrocities then surely the heroes that stop them are fully deserving? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottybarr (talk • contribs) — Scottybarr (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep* To be honest this website has in-numerable gigabytes of data based on obscure hobbies and truely bad web phenomenon, the section needs expanding somewhat, but who could argue that this does not deserve a page on here? The same people who think that there should be multiparagraph sections on what underwear pikachu may or may not wear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.144.135.189 (talk • contribs)


 * I resent your implication, good sir, and find your comparison downright slanderous. I reserve the right to feel about this article any way I please and I'll be damned before allowing my opinions be weighed on the crooked scales of some lackwit knowlessman. --Agamemnon2 17:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Right. How many lives has all your base are belong to us ever saved? Wayne's World merits separate articles for the SNL sketch and the movie, and genuine hero John doesn't merit an article of his own? Shame on Wikipedia for being US-centric. Just because you haven't heard of him doesn't mean he's not a big deal over here. 82.40.183.118 11:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia of the people and places that are part of the moving culture.  John Smeaton is someone that has brought some hope to those that had none, and taken away the fear that was intended by terrorism.  He has done more than anyone that has been in the Big Brother house, but yet their pages remain.  Kylie 3.07.07 — 83.67.59.163 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep and expand, or we'll set about ye! Seriously though, keep and improve. Tiocfaidh Ár Lá! 13:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep* He is part of current news so he deserves the right to be on here, Keep John On Wiki, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.66.18 (talk • contribs)


 * Keep* There are worse articles on wikipedia, at least this has some relevance to life and recent events. Although i think that the article definitely needs some expansion it shouldn't be deleted. Princesskirsty 14:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep* We should certainly have articles on have a go heroes like this, could do with expanding though. Tomgreeny 17:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge as a sentence to the main Glasgow incident article. As per WP:BLP1E we should not have have articles on people only notable for a single event.   Only if he establishes independent notability seperate from this one incident would a seperate article be valid. Davewild 17:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I pity the closing admin - what a mess! I don't see how this fellow is different from Bill Clinton (truck driver) (see deletion log), aside from the minor detail that he exists.  More to the point, I don't see how this person is notable independent of the incident, so really I'd redirect his name to the incident. Shalom Hello 17:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep* How about this guy, Todd Beamer, or this guy, Mark Bingham both heroes like John Smeaton who are only famous for one event when they saved many people's lives, how do they deserve a page when John does not!!! And oh yeah, for the wikipedian who said he was only famous because of media hype how about this Paris Hilton, Jade Goody and Chantelle Houghton, who are these people who deserve wikipedia pages and John does not? --RMC1989 18:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: Whoever has flagged this for deletion has gone against Wikipedia's stated policy. This is an article about a current news story. Flag it for want of expanding into a fully formed article if necessary, but deleting this is inappropriate. We'll set aboot ye! :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justificatus (talk • contribs).
 * This is not an article about a news story - it's about a human being. We already have an article about the news story. All this energy going into trying to save this article in this debate, and the article still contains only three sentences! This is an omen I tell ye. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Both John Smeaton and the Internet phenonmenon surrounding him are the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources:
 * BBC NEWS, UK
 * BBC NEWS, UK - another article about the Internet demanding he appear at T in the Park
 * The National Post, Canada
 * The Glasgow Evening Times, UK
 * The Daily Telegraph, UK
 * The Times, UK
 * Metro, UK
 * The Scotsman, UK
 * International Herald Tribune, France
 * The man is a hero and is not merely an person on the scene at Glasgow Airport, but an international Internet phenonemon. 85.210.60.42 19:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per the above. Passes WP:BIO (specifically, "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" -Wang Weilin, anybody?), supported by multiple non-trivial references in reliable news sources. Tevildo 20:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well sourced, and subject of a large amount of coverage in a variety of media sources.  WATP   (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This is absolutely not media hype, it reflects the black humour which real and virtual communities use to reinforce those things which they hold in common at times of stress. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.111.137.26 (talk • contribs).
 * Keep The John Smeaton story merits inclusion for 3 reasons: 1) Smeaton was involved in thwarting a major terrorist attack, and as such is newsworthy. 2) He is a born communicator, and his involvement in the media's breathless reporting of this incident make him a principle source for academic study of terrorism in the UK. Biographical information on him is relevant to this topic. 3) The internet phenomenon which arose around the Smeaton story will be relevant to all those with an interest in the development of Wikipedia's own medium. The wit and originality of Smeaton's way of expressing himself carried over into the tribute site, with its innovative "pints behind the bar" concept.


 * Keep This article should be kept because John Smeaton is a modern day hero in Scotland. Deleting this article would be a disgrace and a slap in the face against the global fight against terrorism. As time passes the content will grow. Who else has had as much press coverage across the world than John Smeaton over the last couple of days? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AJP2007 (talk • contribs).


 * Keep. Multiple, non-trivial reliable sources discuss his heroic actions and internet driven popularity. Hell, at least one source even notes the enthusiasm generated here on Wikipedia.  Rockpock  e  t  21:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Funny guy.--AchtungAchtung 21:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Major media story worldwide. --JJay 21:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia is full of pages with little or no information on uninteresting and quickly forgotten people such as reality TV show contestants, one hit wonder musicians and mediocre athletes. A terror attack in Scotland was until now non-existant and the event is now marked on the history of Glasgow.  All major television stations worldwide used John Smeaton's witness report and Glaswegians will always remember his name in connection with the first ever terror attack on our country and as the epitome of the spirit of Scottish people.  The fact that the deletion issue has sparked so much debate is in itself proof that John Smeaton's wiki should not be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.155.201.244 (talk • contribs).


 * Keep. Speaking as a Glaswegian, I think some of John's view, and particularly his catch phrase "This is Glasgow, we'll set aboot ye!" sum up elequently the determination and principles of the city's people. I also think that the fact that we are having this debate so soon, and the fact that 1,000 pints were pledged within days of the incident is a stunning illustration of the power of the internet as a campaigning and publicity tool which, along with similar internet phenomina of the past (such as the Blair Witch Project) will still be talked about for years to come. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.41.245.61 (talk • contribs).
 * Keep. He did something news worthy and non-trivial —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.158.245.187 (talk • contribs).


 * Keep. This article must be kept. For a start he has been on BBC, CNN, Fox News, Sky News, a whole host of newspapers across the country and abroad and even has his own website. Scotland has never suffered a terrorist attack and yet he instinctively steamed in. He has been mentioned by politicians in the House of Commons as a "hero". Had this man been an American who put his own life in danger, who foiled a terrorist attack, who ran towards a burning car full of gas, petrol and nails, prevented the attacker from reaching the boot and blowing up the car there would be no questions asked about this page. This man, along with one or two others, perhaps saved the lives of everyone inside that terminal building. Just because he's a "weegie" who you can't understand does not mean his actions are worth any less. John Smeaton is a modern day hero. Instead of running from danger he ran towards it. We, the Scottish people, are a brave and passionate people. We stand up to danger and will not let these terrorists attack our country. We call ourselves the best small country in the world, and I think John's actions epitomised that. So for those reasons, the page should stay Crocodiles 22:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Even if no-one remembers his name in a week, he wouldn't be the only person on wikipedia to have such a fate. He has done much for the nation, showing that the ordinary man on the street can make a difference in todays world. Perhaps a similar person would be Guy Goma, who has a wikipedia article. What was his achievement? He was mistaken for someone else. If Guy is worthy of inclusion, John Smeaton cetainly is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.23.123.32 (talk • contribs).
 * Keep, sources say notable. Everyking 00:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong DELETE per Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article This is POLICY not!Balloonman 00:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your POLICY link simply explains that being in the news once doesn't guarantee an article, i.e. it's not a defense against a valid reason to delete. It says nothing about actively deleting things because they've been in the news once. Please pick another Wikipedia policy to justify your deletion request. 62.31.67.29 12:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please provide a defense... a person who is the flavor of the day, isn't notable due to his/her 15 minutes of fame. even if Bebo instructs people to come here to vote...Balloonman 05:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep if not for the follow-on attention after the fact that he has received, I'd have said merge with the Glasgow airport event article, but mentioned in numerous WP:RSes for the internet phenom and therefore seems notable for that too and WP:BLP1E ceases to apply. Carlossuarez46 00:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This entry should stand as a bona fide internet phenomenon. Clearly the popularity of the sub site, and numerous - fixed - news website entries are enough to warrant this page to be maintained. Although it's "early days", the public response is strong (and still growing). This guys 15 minutes of fame are far from over! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.139.35.13 (talk • contribs).


 * Keep. In most circumstances, a person notable solely for actions in a single event would be ideal merge candidates, but in this case the guy has received hero status. This is not some mere pop culture phenomenon, but an actual act of bravery recognized by the media, who have devoted individual articles to the person . Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: Whoever has flagged this for deletion has gone against Wikipedia's stated policy. This is an article about a current news story. Flag it for want of expanding into a fully formed article if necessary, but deleting this is inappropriate. --Justificatus 08:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC) We'll set aboot ye! :-)
 * I've struck this comment as this is Justificatus' second contribution to this debate. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: What idiot flagged this for deletion? If I hear someone talking about John Smeaton and I'd never hard of him I'd want to look him up and find out who he is. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.190.0.26 (talk • contribs).


 * Keep. Not just important as a current item but liable to be referred to for years to come as an example of active citizenry and culturally-shaped responses to observed norm-transgressing behaviour. I suspect that whoever flagged for possible deletion has a very non-encyclopaedaic bee in their bonnet as motivation.Endie 10:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. You have to ask whether anyone will want to look at this article in, say, a year's time.  There are plenty of other people who have been similarly heroic in such situations (e.g. the bus driver involved in the 7/7 attacks) who do not have articles dedicated to them.  MFlet1 10:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Wikipedia's great, the lad clearly isn't notable by some intellectual standard but he'll be a page of interest for years to come - the media' made him notable, sadly the bus driver at 7/7 didn't get the same coverage. There's 1000s other articles that should be deleted first. And can't some people on Wikipedia lighten up, stop treating it like some holy cow (it's a flipping website) and get on with their lives elsewhere? It really doesn't matter, leave the damn page he's on BBC 6 O'Clock News ferchrissake... Me677 10:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep.The actions he performed combined with the the statements he made about how Britain (and more symbolically, the western world) would not accept what is going on, justify this man's reference. His quote will be remembered for a long time.  Steggall 14:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep or failing that merge to Glasgow airport incident. Seems notable.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 12:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I see a lot of anon/new users in this debate; I wouldn't rule out the possibility of sockpuppet use in this debate.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 12:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - Notable (if rather recent!) Internet meme. Cheers, DWaterson 14:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep.The actions of this man show how public action by any citizen can make a difference others les worthy and even fictional characters have pages. why should a real hero be any less worthy? His quote will be remembered for a long time. Adn he should have his own page so people can see how every one of us can resist terrorismUser:Adouglasmhor:Adouglasmhor 15:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC) — Adouglasmhor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * KeepI would tend to say that we should keep this article he has done something in the public eye that has earned his 15 minutes of fame and righfully deserves to go in the history of Wikipeida, we prune and publish information on celebritys and other not so well known public figures. (Atrades 15:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Keep Notable as he has become an internet phenomena, a phenomena which has received coverage in traditional media sources too. Red star 18:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The UK Prime Minister noted the response by the "British Public" who were not going to accept attacks on their way of life during Prime Minister's Questions on June 4th, 2007 - with John Smeaton being held as the first example of this behaviour occuring. It is definitely notable with the possible future backlash that may occur. 82.9.61.225 18:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable due to the massive attention given to this man. The internet has been filled with discussion and references, with the Scottish and UK wide coverage being considerable.
 * I was hoping to add this to the article, but in PM Qs, all Gordon Brown said was "I want to remind people of just how brave and courageous the explosives experts in London and those who tackled the terrorist activity at Glasgow airport were." The First Minister has "suggested that there should be some formal recognition of the bravery of the emergency services and members of the public after their efforts last Saturday." or "vowed to salute the brave terrorist-battlers." but I can't find him mentioning John Smeaton by name. However, Alex McLeish has "backed calls" for John Smeaton should get a medal and directly referenced him by saying "I love all that 'We'll set aboot ye' stuff. That’s the Scots mentality — and now the whole world knows it." 62.31.67.29 09:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I only because everyone is obbsessed with him. There is a website about him for God's sake! Liamoliver 20:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable for the time being, review notability in a month or so, let's not delete it yet and upset everyone, just chill and we'll be able to look at it all more objectively in a few weeks. there's be no harm done.  although it needs cleaning up badly. Spunkymcpunk 20:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep If you can have pages on people from sport, for being famous for being famous then you can have a page on John Smeaton (JS). Someday someone will write an article on the aattack and this will be a supporting link [or even be inserted in such an article].  139.80.176.2 23:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Alex Salmond, First Minister of the Scottish Government, has vowed to honour John Smeaton and the other civillians who assisted the police with an honour, possibly the George Cross the highest award civilians can receive for bravery. Surely Wikipedia should recognise his bravery by allowing the page to remain. Techip 01:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge He is certainly worthy of a mention in the article about the attacks. MarkRandall 08:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Let us not remove it yet, the information is fresh. It could grow into a more substianal article akin to this Wesley Autrey article (which is of a similar vain). Znx 08:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Easy Keep A lot of Wiki people still think in terms of paper-written encyclopaedias of yesterday. It is not just totally natural to have an immediate entry for phenomena such as the Glasgow terrorist attack and the more prominent people involved -- it is essential to keep the article up for as long as there is a Wiki and space available! Online encyclopaedias deal in real time; they possess vast spaces for depository of information; it's where people turn to when something happens; or when people need to look up something in the past, as they will, probably, in five years time, when wondering about a Trivia entry on someone like John Smeaton. This is a no-brainer decision and only people upset with media's emphasis on instant celebrity are upset. But Wiki is not E! channel or Big Brother. Wiki is simply of this time. The Gnome 08:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: At the moment, John Smeaton is highly notable and what's currently being said about him is positive and can easily be backed by reliable sources. To delete the article now would be presumptuous. This could go either way - either he's further lauded and becomes like Wesley Autrey or Todd Beamer, or he's forgotten about and we have no reason to keep an article on him. As we can't predict the future, it's best not to delete this in the presumption he will be forgotten about in the future. Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy does not demand we immediately delete articles that private people in the news for one event. What it actually says is if the person "remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them". It's too early to tell if we should "generally avoid" having a John Smeaton article, specifically because the media story has not run out and John may well be in line for some award or honour, which would raise his profile. Remember that the media aren't just publishing stories of his attack on terrorists, they're also publishing stories about the website set up in his honour, the calls for him to appear at T in the Park, the 1000 pints pledged to him, the call for giving him a medal, etc. It's about him, rather than his part in thwarting the attack. 62.31.67.29 10:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

*Comment As I said before, I think a merger of the encyclopedic content into the Glasgow attack article would be appropriate, but he's not worth an individual biography for this one incident. Just because The Sun describes him as an hero doesn't mean he's notable enough for an article.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 11:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep after reconsidering. Not just notable for one event, also notable for the meme, pints, etc.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 12:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Please can this be deleted as this is only a topical news story and not some thing that should be used in an encylopedia.


 * Delete This is only going to be used by the politicians as a way of keeping something very devious out of the public eye, if he get a medal all you would hear is goodwill stories about how much a hero he really is and keep of the subject really at hand i.e. How the heck these people got a job as doctors and were allowed it to the country in the first place, dispite increased checks supposedly done by immagration and the intellengence agencies.
 * Comment. Most of the anon/new keep voters here who are saying that he "deserves" an article are using totally invalid arguments. We were all newcomers once but it makes me angry when people don't understand Wikipedia policy and try to push things to one side in a debate that they don't know how to properly participate in.-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 12:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: I think the article show be kept but highly modified. I think it's interesting and notable that he's become such an internet phenomenon and I think that's more unique than the fact he's a "have a go hero" in what just happened to turn out to be a very high profile incident. Psychofly 13:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC) — Psychofly] (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Merge, despite gaining fame on the internet behind most heroes, couldn't this all be merged into the parent article? --  Zanimum 14:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Pmendham 14:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Yes, I am not a regular contributor but, using the links on this page, I have been and read the relevant wikipedia policy sections such as this one and I still feel there is merit for keeping this, even long term. The remnants of this internet phenomenon will survive for a good many years, and should a tangential browsing session present an unwary user with a reference to John Smeaton wikipedia is likely one of the first places they will look.  This is a valid use of wikipedia resources.


 * Keep: I'd say keep, he is the subject of much public interest, and has become a minor celebrity. Add to that the fact that he has been put forward by the police to recieve awards for bravery etc he is not subject that will fade from the so-called limelight as quickly as some assume. And to be honest... i just don't see the problem with it being there. Psychofly 13:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.131.121.189 (talk • contribs)


 * Delete: Pointless article that will hardly stand for much in a few years -- johndrinkwater 14:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Leithp 14:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Leithp 14:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep My first instinct was to think "internet celebrity", but he does seem to be getting a lot of press coverage. Lurker (talk · contribs) 14:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep As well as first hand participant to a major event in Scottish history (the first ever act of terrorism committed on solid ground in Scotland, AFAIK), and being feted as a modern hero, John Smeaton also serves as a valuable indicator of the role of the media and internet in raising a seeminly ordinary individual to a pseudo-stardom and reknown. Moreso, surely the strong Scottish awareness (John Smeaton has become a phenomenon in this country) is important in consideration - whilst some American or other non UK english speakers may find themselves confused by the person and incident, I don't see that as a strong reason for deletion unless Wikipedias policy is to discourage cultural understanding and cross-referencing. Finally, I think the idea of descriping anonymouse users ala myself as sock puppets is the sort of arrogant attitude that leads to people regarding wikipedia as an insular, arrogant, 'we decide the truth' style resource rather than being as reliable as, say, the encyclopedia Brittania. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.254.89.228 (talk • contribs).
 * Keep He is noted for the press coverage alone.Journalist1983 15:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep He is becoming very notable - The Guardian did a two page piece on him today and the public's reponse, it is also illustrated in the paper verion with various "posters" demonstrating his sttaus as an internet meme too which is why I popped along here to have a look at this entry. (Emperor 15:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Keep He is cetainly notable and I'm sure his quotes will be remembered in future. As others have said, many other internet memes have pages here, but the difference is that Smeaton is also prominent in mainstream media in the UK, and has been noted elsewhere in the world. If he's completely forgotten in a few months time, merge it with the Glasgow Airport attack article, because at the very least he deserves a mention there as an imporant part of the aftermath as well as the atempted attack itself. But for now the article is relevant and if it wasn't here many people would be wondering why. Bluejam 15:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge content into 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack. Please could the editors whose only justification is "the guy deserves an entry" read Wikipedia policy on what is (and is not) notable here, and also what Wikipedia is not for here. Press coverage, by itself, does not establish notability... and is also not necessarily a reliable source. It's a fine line as to how much fame someone needs before they become notable - I would argue that people like Jade Goody, Paris Hilton etc should not have articles either, because they are non-notable people from an encyclopedic perspective. Does Mr Smeaton deserve a medal? I'd be honoured to pin it on him myself... but does he belong in an encyclopedia? Taking an unemotional, rational look at it - sorry, no. EyeSereneTALK 16:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack. The John Smeaton story has had a large amount of press coverage, but for the moment it probably doesn’t justify an individual entry. But it should be retained in some form. Wikipedia is after all an information resource and somewhere down the line I can see people wondering what this John Smeaton stuff was all about. Spacecool 17:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article is pretty poor quality at the moment, but there is a great deal of interest in this guy - for better or worse he is increasingly symbolizing the response to the attacks. I personally ended up on the page b/c I was hoping that there would be more info on wiki than I have so far found from other sources.  Ketchumk
 * Keep: Hey, Jimmy! Has received a significant amount of media attention, and may well receive an official medal. PatGallacher 19:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Bebo morons are suggesting that Wikipedia is wrong to have nominated this page for deletion.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia" didn't nominate this page for deletion, only User:Lynbarn did. They used the phrase "The idiots at Wikipedia", which can be inclusive or exclusive depending on how you want to take it. 62.31.67.29 14:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

139.133.7.38 10:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC) saintmarkpeth 11:14, July 6 2007 (UTC) — saint_markperth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. THE CRITERIA
 * KEEP* - He already seems more notable than Paris bleeping Hilton. GrotesqueOldParty 19:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per RMC1989. If people who do nothing notable except die in a terrorist attack on an airplane can have articles without controversy, then I can't imagine what is wrong with this one. Of course, the article could do with some improvement. It would probably be FA by now if all the above effort had gone into it. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - John Smeaton well exemplifies the attitudes of Scots, and Glaswegians in particular, to contemporary terrorist attacks on their country. There aren't any other such well-documented exemplars and therefore this one should be kept. To remain engaging, WP needs leavening with this type of colour.
 * Keep This is a heroic man who played a vital role in thwarting a major terrorist attack. His name and the incident will be forever linked. Certainly it needs edited but if you delete it the only loss will be to Wikipedia's relevance. I have to say I'm surprised that this is even a topic for discussion. FrazR
 * Keep - BLP and the like were really aimed at something else. I can't see this harming him in any way. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 21:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Ultimately, if you delete this article because of it's 'limited' attention time - then you should delete thousands of others - e.g. Wesley Autrey? I don't see his page being deleted. What's the difference? Similarly, there are pages on Renetto, Worzel Gummidge and Nikki Hilton. Wikipedia is a popular encyclopedia - not a definitive one. 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - His contribution & notoriety are roughly equivalent to those of Crispus Attucks, Todd Beamer, Joseph Gary -- who all have their own entries. A historian might well be interested in more than Smeaton's name, age, & job title; his actions & attitude can be interpreted as reflecting broadly on citizens' response to terrorism (though Smeaton is braver than most & therefore a standout).Mc sputnik 22:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC) — Mc sputnik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - John Smeaton is my hero, he has saved Scotland from terrorists, although if he is to be deleted from here, it proves what sad people wikipedia are with no thought for the world.
 * Keep or failing that Merge to Glasgow airport incident. Notable for only one thing is still notable, look at Gavrilo Princip . Edward321 00:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep What? Are you guy's nuts? I'm in Chicago and he's the talk of the town here even. This is a special moment in time - recording it is required. It is an encyclopedic event that will be forever known and mythologized. jombl 22:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC) — jombl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. The mergists are arguing that WP:BLP1E applies here - will he be remembered 6 months, a year, five years down the line? WP:NOTNEWS suggests that we should not cover hype, or at the very least merge it.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 08:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepHis interviews were completely visceral and honest and he deserves to be well known (unlike most famous people).
 * KeepThis is a higly topical item of news, he has been in every major paper since the event happened and is still being interveiw on international T.V
 * Keep – his participation and commentary on this historically significant event has been given significant mainstream coverage, and the internet phenomenon has also achieved mainstream coverage. Well sourced, clearly notable. Do we have to wait for the movie? ;) .. dave souza, talk 10:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Demonstrable name recognition, multiple sources referenced. Passes WP:BIO. Buy him a pint. Badgerpatrol 11:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I have to be honest, at first I couldn't imagine why this article was being considered for deletion, and having read the posts here and trawled the policies and guidelines, I'm still not sure. As someone who has used Wikipedia for some time but without contributing, I am also fairly worried that my opinion will not be counted in this discussion. To combat this, I have examined the issue very closely and measured this case against Wikipedia's own Criteria for notability of people.
 * Strong Keep. His is a very interesting modern day anthropological case study and he is fast becoming an important mascot with regards the war on terror at home - interesting too for the modern historian. I genuinely think this page will be returned to for years to come, especially if terrorism in Scotland becomes a common theme. His statement regarding Glasgow's treatment of terrorists is also very important and is as poignant (at least to those from the city) as Churchill’s ‘we will never surrender!’.Martshaw81 12:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC) — Martshaw81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; however, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.

The person has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If we take the original interviews as primary sources, then it is clearly demonstratable that there have been a number of secondary newspaper, internet, radio and television articles, and that John Smeaton should be considered notable on this measure If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability. Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Even if the depth of coverage were to be deemed 'not substantial'. which I personally feel would be incorrect, there exist multiple independent sources that have been cited, and these continue to grow. I don't feel that anyone could argue thatthe coverage is 'trivial'.

The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography. I am sure it is only a matter of time before we are reading the John Smeaton biography, no doubt entitled "We'll set aboot ye" and serialised prior to publication in one of the redtops. The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. Scotland's First Minister has already assured the country that the heroes from Glasgow Airport - including John Smeaton - will receive appropriate honours. The person has demonstrable wide name recognition I think that in this case, demonstrable wide name recognition is undeniable. Try it - I'm sure if you ask a number of people who John Smeaton is, the majority will mention he is a baggage handler at Glasgow airport rather than a notable 18th century civil engineer

The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. That John Smeaton made a widely recognised contribution is in no doubt. I'm not sure that any of us could claim at this time to be able to state with certainty that his contributiion will NOT become part of the enduring historical record. My own inclination is that it will, much like Todd Beamer's "Let's roll" or the actions of Mayor Giuliani after the 9/11 attacks

Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products I have to say, this issue causes me the most distress. We sit and discuss John Smeaton's merits for inclusion in Wikipedia based on his heroic conduct, his forthright interviews and his burgeoning cult status during and following the terrorist attacks on the airport where he worked. However, once he signs the well-nigh inevitable Irn Bru promotional deal, then no more discussion is necessary. Doesn't seem right somehow.

Given that the Criteria for Notability state "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards", I would say by virtue of the fact John Smeaton meets so many of them the article is not a candidate for deletion. two other points to consider are that other less-notable people have an entry, so why shouldn't he, and secondly that the argument that 'he won't be remembered in a year' is a spurious one. Having read both What Wikipedia is and What Wikipedia is not, I can see no grounds for this being a valid argument for deletion. An encyclopedia is after all a repository of knowledge, often of knowledge that may otherwise be forgotten. 80.80.187.181 12:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Quote from Bebo: "The idiots at Wikipedia are flagging John Smeaton’s page for deletion. We need to make sure this doesn't happen. Get on to Wikipedia and get involved in the discussion. We can't let these idiots at Wikipedia remove a Scottish hero, as easily as that!". To set the record straight, we welcome anyone to Wikipedia who wants to get involved... but please note, this is not a discussion about Mr Smeaton's heroism, which is uncontested, but about whether an article about this incident belongs in an encyclopedia. Someone being newsworthy is not the same as someone being notable - check out articles on other Scottish heroes (eg William Wallace) for comparison - it makes it clearer what sort of content and standards we should be aiming for. EyeSereneTALK 13:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 14:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There are literally hundreds - if not thousands - of articles on Wikipedia about utterly non-notable members of the "nobility" of Europe going back to the Middle Ages. I somehow think one article about a baggage handler who happens to have done more than all of them combined can be allowed to stand without bringing down the sparkling edifice that is Wikipedia. GrotesqueOldParty 17:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepThis event happened, John is a real person and people will come here to learn about him (whether you consider it media hype or not). Are you trying to censor real events, real people and real history? There's a word for people who try to do that, and you can find that on Wikipedia. This entry can not be deleted. Ellisario D.M.M. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.202.130.202 (talk • contribs).
 * Keep. He meets several aspects of WP:Bio and his article is referenced by multiple non-trivial sources.GiollaUidir 23:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. He is a real person. He is someone who has featured in the news. He also happens to be a Internet Phenomenon. Cm619 23:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack even though I'm sure the result of this debate will be keep. Seems a lot of people are using the "he's awesome" reason or the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS reasoning. But overall he is probably notable. Evil Monkey - Hello 00:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack - He has no notability except for being involved in this incident, of which he is not even remotely a key figure in it, and therefore does not deserve his own article. A mention or two in the main article is all that is necessary. The359 00:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Yeah, you'd hate to have an article devoted to someone who helped stop a terrorist... it could take attention away from articles about nasty cats. [] Not that I have anything against Lewis. GrotesqueOldParty 03:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Inclusion is not an indicator of notability, Pokémon test, User:Master Thief Garrett/Don't add sewage to the already polluted pond. Articles are judged on their own notability, not on the notability of other articles. Evil Monkey - Hello 04:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I know - and the argument isn't really over "notability," it's over the degree of notability. As I said above, let this article stand.  It can always be revisited later.  Meanwhile, if you really believe what you say, how much time have you spent trying to get unnotables deleted lately? (Don't mess with Lewis, though.  I like Lewis.) GrotesqueOldParty 04:49, 7 July 2007 (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.