Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Setzer


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

The result was delete both and redirect to Domino's_Pizza for the time being. I discounted a large amount of IP !votes with weak rationales here. As mentioned below, it may be possible to write a stand-alone article about the event, as opposed to the people, and if anyone would like the deleted content of these two articles in order to do so, please contact me. Black Kite 08:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Michael Setzer

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete per WP:NOT; todays news is tomorrows chip wrapping. Although disgusting this happens (relatively) often, and there is no reason to assume this case will be particularly notable Ironholds (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This guy and whatever he calls the woman who filmed it wanted attention. They got it, got fired and are now facing felony charges. No need to indulge him by giving him his own article here.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added his filming friend to this nom; obviously non-notable also and have removed a questionable claim that she was a sex offender.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Similar reasons to Ironholds above, the articles are quite unremarkable. ~ Zoe O'Connell ~  (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep ) The story has been discussed in a non-trivial way on [many] reputable sites. Hazir (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you read the opening rationale? Whether or not it passes the guidelines on coverage in a non-trivial manner by reputable, independent sources isn't the issue, the fact that it runs foul of WP:NOT is. Ironholds (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was just about to post a follow up but you beat me to it! I was was tricked by Google's reporting of news articles posted "4 hours ago" that were actually two days old. I wrongly figured that there might be some sustained interest in this case, perhaps some policy changes etc. Hazir (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, gotcha; perfectly understandable. Yes, archives like that which don't produce their own news can be a bit tricky, unfortunately. I guess if and when the case gets to trial there might be a bit more interest, but even then it is coverage of the event rather than the person(s). Ironholds (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Too short. Delete. Alexius08 (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There are many short articles, being short is no rationale for deletion. Aditionally, this made several headlines around the world as it circumscribed the globe and Dominos IS a multinational brand. I know for a fact, that it even made it only EuroNews and so did the CEOs response. This aren't some 2-bit hicks working for mom+pop's pizza shop in nowheresville. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.47.136.121 (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There are many Articles on wikipedia that are yesterday's news. Example, Nataline Sarkisyan, the girl that was denied a liver transplant by Cigna, that is clearly yesterdays now on the SAME level as this. Insurance companies deny everything left and right, what makes Nataline Sarkisyan's case any different.
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for things to avoid. Ironholds (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment She died because of what ensued in that situation. No one even came close to being hurt here. That is a flawed argument, agreed with Ironholds.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is news, as it has been broadcast around the world. I can verify the EuroNews claim. If its not news, then why is Paris Hilton on Wikipedia, seriously. And then there is the Cigna girl. Rarely are people actually charged with tainting food for distribution. There were cases of this stuff appearing with some guy taking a bath in a mcdonalds tub, but not with people actually being judge. The last known incident was the Advil/Tylenol cyanide scares in the late 80s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.104.87 (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In the Tylenol incident, people died. All that happened here was two people were caught by their own stupidity and are rightfully paying for it. No one was injured and about the only items of interest in here deal with common food safety and Domino's PR response.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable. --Ciasteczek (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and retitle This event is notable, not the idiots. They have only  done what hundreds if not thousands of workers have probably done, with only  making & posting the videos being distinctive.  DGG (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and retitle, like DGG said, the event might be notable, the people surely are not. The fact that their images are on the pages reeks of lynching, I am removing them now. --Reinoutr (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge Eventually the story will be buried. I think the information presented could be placed in the main dominoes page or a seperate page on the investigation and outcome.Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I would keep it, since now several lawmakers have started to reassess their food tampering laws because of this event. If you guys wanna merge it into one event and just have redirects from the names, I guess that would be fine. What would we call it?... The Dominos Incident ? Domino Fall Incidient, Dominos Tampering Incident ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.47.136.121 (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a number of isues (may) come out of it but aside from what is actually on the main wiki dominoes page right now thats all the information available. Redirects sound great to me. and perhaps this article you propose in time when more info to make an article becomes available (so its more notable and not just in the news). At least those are my thoughtsOttawa4ever (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep for now Keep for now, in six months / 1 year, we'll know if this person is truly sigifnicant or not in terms of the user-generated content movement ala Youtube. If not Keep, then redirect to Dominos so all edits and info are saved. --BowlerFowl (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That isn't quite how it works; we don't keep things in case they might be notable in a year, we judge articles by the situation at the moment. If this has a wider impact the article can be recreated in a year when that is more evident. Ironholds (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think things work however we agree them to work. Unless there's some sort of policy you want to link to? Enlighten me. As it stands, this person is significant now since the CEO is freaking out about it and there's a front page NYT article about it... If a front page NYT article about an event this person single handedly caused doesnt cut it, I don't know _what_ will... As a side note I am in favor of deleting as many articles from Wikipedia as possible, but since the BP1E rule is so ridiculously stupidly unevenly applied I have become in favor of repealing it.--BowlerFowl (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, but the BLP rules aren't those I proposed that this article be deleted under. If you're voting due to your opinion on policy rather than this article I'd suggest you take your comments to the policy talkpage rather than here. WP:NOT is the policy I nominated this article under; a full page article in anything doesn't matter if it was in immediate reaction to an event rather than evidence of long-term coverage. My thinking on "keeping it just in case" works like this; if the subject still fails in a year, we've kept an article here for a year despite the fact that it fails the inclusion criteria horribly. Essentially we shouldn't try and predict future notability and importance; a twist on WP:CRYSTAL, if you like. Ironholds (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually BP1E and news are both abused in the same ways. People that we want to keep, we keep. People that we don't like we muzzle. Lame. Again, I'm in favor of deleting as many silly attack-ish articles like this one especially one of BLP. These people deserve to pay their debt to society, they don't deserve an internet lynch. But, since these policies are too oft abused I advocate repealing them all, voting to IAR on this application of NEWS is actually an excellent ad hoc way of doing so, since the talkpage of policy pages is a joke. --BowlerFowl (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT#NEWS isn't IAR, it is a valid policy. As said, if you've got some kind of campaign going to show up how stupid you find policies you can take it somewhere else. Ironholds (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No campaign, what campaign. It's not even possible to campaign on Wikipedia. How would anyone do that??? Everything is WP:IAR. I find it extremely relevant to protest a policy at the point where the policy is being enforced. It seems the pinnacle of logic.--BowlerFowl (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete both and redirect to Domino's Pizza where this incident is given the brief mention that it deserves.--Whimsical biblical (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. These incidents don't warrant entire articles. As Whimsical biblical says, a brief mention in Domino's Pizza is all that we need. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Damn, you wanted the attention of the whole world ; posting video on youtube is great, everybody can watch what you are doing or have done. But now its time to pay, you completely deserved it and for the people who dont know you, or what you've done, this article has to stay on wikipedia. Assume the consequences.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.36.153 (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont think payback is a reason to keep a page.Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think "assume the consequences" is good grammar. So this is on youtube, eh? Keep an eye out for SPAs and IPs, peeps. Ironholds (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. this was even in the new york times, people! Silk Knot (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh my god! Wow! It was in the New York Times! See WP:NOT. Ironholds (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To quote WP:NOT, Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, Is there anything that suggests these people go beyond this one event? Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What a silly argument: A thought experiement: is there anything that suggests that John Wilkes Booth goes beyond one event? --Vsld20 (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is only part of WP:NOT. If the individual has had long-lasting coverage from reliable sources he should have an article. JWB obviously has, so... Ironholds (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Merge and keep as event' the event with their names in the article meets notability though I can see arguments for each having a short entry too Hollowinsideandout (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2009 (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.