Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Battaglia


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 16:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Battaglia
NN biography, fails WP:Bio, no Google hits for "Stephen Battaglia"+"John Howard"  Optimale  Gu 10:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Link above returns this from google news, google doesn't update every site in the world every second. - Catchpole 11:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Above link now has hits. Feedyourfeet 03:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment "NN biography, fails WP:BIO" is not a reason for deleting, and never has been. Why don't you base a nomination on policies? Is it not verifiable, not possible to be neutral, original research, libelous, etc. Ans e ll  04:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Seriously, in 100 years is someone looking at Wikipedia really going to find this at all interesting and usefull? It's not like he had a rocket launcher and hugged the guy or tried to shoot him or anything. I don't care how many google hits it gets over the next few days, it's still one small news story.. DrunkenSmurf 12:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:BIO. A decent kiss would have earned notability though - Peripitus (Talk) 14:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is this not enough renown to pass your guideline? Why is a screwdriver a fail for renown, the media certainly doesn't agree with you on that point. Ans e ll
 * Keep with a bit more about the incident and the subsequent reaction. ASIO, Australian Federal Police and people from other security agencies have weighed in on this now. Although Stephen meant the PM no harm, the story in it's essence is that somebody has clotheslined the leader of Australia with a weapon while his security staff have looked on. The kid has definitely been one of the most talked about people in Australia for the last few days. Drett 17:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge the whole thing is rather a bit too fresh to determine its importance. This may be his short-lived moment of fleeting fame, or it may lead to significant reviews and become a story mentioned anytime the Aussie PM is threatened.  But only the future will tell us.  In the meantime, let's look at other similar instances.  Jean Chretien who is a former prime minister of Canada had André Dallaire break into the official residence.  This incident had a large amount of press coverage (in Canada), but André Dallaire does not have his own article, nor is there an article on the incident.  Instead, it's a brief mention in the article for Jean Chretien.  I propose that unless the incident muchrooms, it will fade in importance and so should just be a mention in the article for John Howard. -- Whpq 18:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe there should be an article on him. The renown for being involved in a newsworthy event certainly fits the guideline that the nominator supplied, why wouldn't it fit there too? Ans e ll  04:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep He is a Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events so he passes WP:BIO Since the hug he has been mentioned in the SMH, The Age, On Melbourne Radio & every commercial television station in Australia. He has even been mentioned in South African News. The only problem with the article is that it needs a cleanup. Have a look how many newspapers have reported it Stephen_Battaglia it was not just a little blurb in the backpage it was a full mention. Feedyourfeet 21:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. He has gotten some coverage in the media through hugging John Howard on his 67th birthday while carrying a screwdriver. It might be worth a brief mention in the John Howard article although even that might be pushing it. Capitalistroadster 03:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 03:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. A tricky one but this is a news story that will be all but forgotten in a few days time. A para in the PM's article or ASIO or  Australian Federal Police at most will suffice. -- I@n 03:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It is concerned with a famous security incident concerning a nations PM. It is notable to me, and others, if only because there was absolutely no intention. It doesn't actually fail any of the official policies. It only failed the so called "notability" guidelines, which do not prescribe anything, they only guide, for what that is worth. Ans e ll  04:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think that this incident really deserves a mention, so there's certainly no need to have an article on the guy with the screwdriver. I engaged John Howard in a glaring competition in 1998 (and lost) so should I start an article about this incident as well? --Nick Dowling 10:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But i would say that your incident did not involve a security scare. Am i correct? Feedyourfeet 10:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course not - I was joking! (note my vote for deletion as this incident is non-significant ;) ) --Nick Dowling 11:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment 11 Articles from the media, certainly that counts for something. Feedyourfeet 11:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Get over it; it is a non-event of which you are continually pushing. I was once involved in a 'noteworthy event' that was published in all forms of the media; does that mean I should have my own article informing people about my claim to fame? No, I shouldn't ; and neither should this clown. Orbitalwow 17:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per I@n pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete non-notable persona.  This is a joke, right?  Let me tell you, if you allow rubbish like this into Wikipedia then its reputation is going to be damaged.  Are we seriously saying that anyone who slips through the ranks on a slow news day gets a mention in Wikipedia?I elliot 06:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that any editor disagrees that the security scare should be mentioned in Wikipedia. I think that the question here is what the best way to do that is.  Should Wikipedia provide a name check to Mr Battaglia, and discuss the incident in a biographical article on a person, where readers won't even know to find it in a couple of years' time?  Or should Wikipedia expand the discussion of the Prime Minister of Australia's protective detail in Australian Federal Police, currently a 1 sentence mention, to include documented security scares such as this one?  The latter seems to be the better approach that will benefit readers in the long run, especially given that this article practically has a separate header for every sentence, strongly indicating that it has had to be padded in order to make it an article of any great length.  So condense and merge to a section on the PM's protective detail in Australian Federal Police. Uncle G 09:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I strongly agree with Uncle G on this one. I elliot 11:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per Uncle G. It would be good to keep this information, but imo Stephen Battaglia doesn't deserve an article on his own. --Zoz (t) 17:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per Uncle G or delete. Do not keep this article. -- DS1953 talk  03:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per DS1953's wording. Harr o 5 11:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. With a week having past, this guy is now just an idiot who will claim this at parties in 10 years. Extreme nn. Harr o 5 08:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. With a week having past, this guy is now just an idiot who will claim this at parties in 10 years. Extreme nn. Harr o 5 08:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge per Uncle G. A paragraph in AusFedPol or JWHoward would suffice. Jpeob 23:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment So other people who have not caused security scares dont have there own article also? Feedyourfeet 08:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Feedyourfeet don't use no double negatives! They aren't not confusing.I elliot 10:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Being British, I'd never heard of this minor incident before. Surely one purpose of wikipedia is to answer questions that might spring into people's minds, perhaps in 20 years time. As it's been written, I can't see any harm in keeping it (though it doesn't need so many headings). Nunquam Dormio 10:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge -- into a relevent section of the John Howard article. - Longhair 00:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ian. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete completely nn.Blnguyen | rant-line 06:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Blnguyen, Did you see the news? and the Chaser has even copyed it. Feedyourfeet 19:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I did, and I'm not convinced, unlessevery car crash is documented by Wikipedia.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do car crashes, Please stay on topic. Feedyourfeet 04:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete fails 100 year minute test. -- Samir  धर्म 05:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Merging is ridiculous - this utter blip on the radar doesn't even deserve a sentence. Rebecca 05:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


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