Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
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. (non-admin closure) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alek Skarlatos[edit]

Alek Skarlatos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This young man is one of the three US citizens involved in disarming the gunman during 2015 Thalys train attack, therefore newspaper coverage of him is immense. However is this a WP:BLP1E? The only content in this article which is not in the main event page, is that apparently he is now going to be appearing on Dancing with the Stars. Does this justify the article? Pincrete (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as article creator. Skarlatos was initially notable for one event, but not anymore. He became publicly known for stopping the terrorist attack, but is know notable for being a foreign recipient of the Legion of Honour. He will also be on Dancing with the Stars. He does not satisfy BLP1E because quote on quote " We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." Skarlatos is very unlikely to be a low-profile individual now that he is a foreign recipient of France's highest award, and will be having coverage of his role on Dancing with the Stars. Quote on quote "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Skarlatos role in the stopping of the French train attack was very well documented by international media. Skarlatos does not satisfy that category. Skarlatos also satisfies the WP:GNG. He has had more attention about him than just his role in the attack by international media. He will know be getting more coverage since he will be on Dancing with the Stars. This article was nominated for deletion too early. He does satisfy the guidelines, and his article should stay. Good day! CookieMonster755 (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CookieMonster755, the French police, and the media say at present it was a possible 'terrorist attack', at the moment it's all surmisal.Pincrete (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you read what I said, Skarlatos does not meet criteria for BLP1E for several reasons. That is to protect people who don't want fame, obviously he wants fame due to the fact that he will be on Dancing with the Stars. I do agree that I am being biased due to the Crystal rule, but you know there is alternatives to deletion. Also; he meets the Wikipedia notability guide WP:ANYBIO #1, quote on quote "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." He also meets Wikipedia notability guide WP:NotableMIL #1, quote on quote "Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour." CookieMonster755 (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I read what you wrote, what information is in this article that is not already in the main 'attack' article, apart from the 'dancing' plug and the assumption that this is going to lead to notability beyond the single event? See my remarks about WP:CRIME below, because everything in this discussion hinges on whether going to be in 'Dancing', justifies the seperate article. Pincrete (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - per WP:ANYBIO #1, Legion of Honor the highest award in France. WP:BLP1E requires three criteria to be met but does not meet #1 because Skarlatos will be on Dances with Stars. His decision to appear on Dancing with the Stars tells us he is seeking the spotlight and choosing to be a public figure. BLP1E is meant to protect people from becoming a public figure who otherwise don't seek it but were thrust into the spotlight by some news event. Skarlatos is seeking the spotlight and now involved in multiple events. Also #3 requires an "insignificant event"; this arguably a significant event and he played a prominent role. -- GreenC 00:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His Dancing with the Stars is very persuasive for a keep since he would be a war hero and a TV star. Other Dancing with the Stars contestants have Wikipedia pages. A sign of our sad Wikipedia world is that the DWTS stint makes him notable, more than his role in stopping a terrorist attack. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sandra, as I say above to CookieMonster755, the French police, and the media say at present it was a possible 'terrorist attack', at the moment it's all surmisal, neither motives nor intentions are known. Pincrete (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's been featured on many media outlets for a significant amount of time and will continue to be covered on, which already establishes some notability. I think an article for him is in order. In fact, I think articles for all the other passengers involved in subduing the gunman is in order. Versus001 (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These are all WP:Crystal arguments, of course his present fame MAY lead to him being known beyond this event, but at present this one event is the sole reason for the coverage. Pincrete (talk) 09:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The guy is known for 2 reasons. Just because a particular reader or man on the street is ignorant and doesn't know him is not a disqualifying reason. For example, ask the man on the street who famous author Pablo Neruda or famous painter Jackson Pollack were and maybe 95% of people will say "never heard of him". Given that criteria, most Wikipedia articles would be deleted except the Kardashians and President Obama. Even the Prime Minister of New Zealand would be deleted because 99% of people on the street can't name him. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At present, he is known for one reason, and the best place to incorporate the info about him is the event for which he is known, where it is given context, and will remain permanent. Everything else is crystal-ball gazing based on just over two weeks of news coverage. The media and the public are fickle. Pincrete (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What's the big hurry? Look at all the future tense and conditionals above: "will...", "would be...", "will..."; what's the big hurry, here, can we wait for it to happen, first? Agree with Pincrete's comments about WP:Crystal; he's not there yet, give him time. As of now, he's still part of the aftermath of the Thalys news cycle. As far as Legion of Honor winners, they estimate there's a million of them, although the exact number is not known. Mathglot (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CookieMonster, I was not aware of WP:ANYBIO, thanks for bringing that to my attention. If that's legit, I would change my vote (unhappily, but I would). The reason I'm not happy about it, is that it would mean we have about one million articles to add to WP. Would you like to take the first 500,000 and I'll take the rest? ;-) Mathglot (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CookieMonster read on below ANYBIO to WP:CRIME: " A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size." ... What encyclopedic info cannot be incorporated, indeed has not already been incorporated in the main event page ? Pincrete (talk) 08:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He is not a criminal. I pointed out that he qualifies for his own article under ANYBIO. CookieMonster755 (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial', of course he isn't a criminal. Who suggested he was? Pincrete (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Pincrete for not reading the full text in context. I guess Skarlatos would fit in that category... CookieMonster755 (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Intensive, extensive coverage of this man and his heroic act.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As has been pointed out many times, the Legion of Honour is the highest order of France, but it comes in five grades. The lowest grade, which these gentlemen were awarded, is very common and cannot possibly be said to confer inherent notability - it's the equivalent of the Member of the Order of the British Empire or Queen's Gallantry Medal in Britain, for example, at the most (see Note 1 at WP:SOLDIER). He did receive considerable media coverage, but it's only a WP:BLP1E situation. Many people commit brave acts. They're not all eligible for articles. If they were we'd have millions of such articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp - He still does not fit the BLP1E. I explained above. No, his media coverage is not a BLP1E. What about Dancing with the Stars coverage he has already received. Does that have any connection with the Paris train attack? I don't think so... but it's fine if you beg differently. CookieMonster755 (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He has only been asked to be on Dancing with the Stars because of the Paris train attack, so yes, it quite clearly has a connection. How bizarre that you seem to think it doesn't! Reality TV contestants always get a lot of coverage but are not generally considered to be notable just because they're reality TV contestants. This is long-established. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... you do make a point Necrothesp, but I feel like your being sarcastic, but I guess that's just me. CookieMonster755 (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, not sarcastic. Just rather surprised at your statement that his reality TV coverage had nothing to do with his exploits in France. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to suggest that someone with significant coverage somehow isn't notable? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jakob, the coverage isn't simply significant, it's huge, however all of it relates the the 'trigger event', and guidelines are clear that he should be covered within the event page. There is anyway no additional content on 'his' page apart from maybe he is going to be on a dance programme. Pincrete (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As nominator, the best place for coverage of his role in the train attack is on that event's page and notability outside that event is not established. Pincrete (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can't vote twice, the nomination is considered a vote. You may comment, or engage in discussion, as much as you like, though. Kraxler (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kraxler, I didn't consider the nomination a vote, more a question, however I am happy to abide by standard practice. Pincrete (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification, I did not nominate this article for deletion because I thought that there was insufficient coverage, nor because I believed that Skarlatos did not 'deserve' coverage. Rather because WP's best interest (and his?) are best served by covering his role within the incident for which he is known. Time will tell whether he carves out a public role outside that event. Pincrete (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be notable for both a television role and winning a notable award for heroism; this BLP1E is not relevant. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Third-level (or lower) gallantry decoration? Not inherently notable. Many thousands of people have won such decorations. Why is he special? Reality TV contestant because of his gallantry decoration? Not inherently notable. Perfectly well covered in the article on the incident. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Necrothesp. Notability needs to stand the test of time, and this person clearly doesn't. In the world we live in these days, anyone can garner significant coverage in a matter of hours. Does an encyclopaedia benefit from articles about things gone viral? I seriously doubt it. If he becomes notable in the near future, then we can easily recreate this biography. Let's see what happens; from experience I'm about 96% sure there'll be no more coverage about him in a couple of months' time, but then again let's not assume, let's see (which is how Wikipedia works, not assuming people deserve articles but rather observing after there is well-established atemporal and extensive coverage). FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • note that journalists [7] and [8] their [9] readers [10] can't seem to get enough Skarlatos. That was just some of what's on a news google search by "most recent first". I propose we all put way our crystal balls, keep this one for now, and revisit in a year, when there may be some clarity as to enduring notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory, you have voted above to 'keep'.Pincrete (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True. Nor did I just "vote". I "noted" that quite a lot of coverage continues to appear daily in mainstream media. I suggested that the article be kept - because it has a ton of sources; pointed out that calling this a flash in the pan requires the use of a crystal ball; and suggested that a kept article can be revisited if an editor thinks - months from now - that he can persuade the rest of us that Skarlatos was a mere nine days wonder. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify I am a firm keep. There is notability here. If it comes up for AFD again, I will argue that enduring notability is established by sources now available.E.M.Gregory (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Extensive coverage exists at the present allowing a suitable article to be constructed at the present. I fail to see what Wikipedia would gain by deleting this. Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Winner 42, as I've said often above, there is enormous coverage, but almost all of it relates directly to the train incident, what point therefore is repeating that info on a 'private' page? Maybe in the future he will establish some notability outside that incident, at present he hasn't. What does WP gain? Gathering all relevant info in one place, where it has context.Pincrete (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or maybe redirect--let the tabloids decide whether to redirect to the Thalys attack or to Dancing with the Stars). I don't see why anyone who makes the papers needs an article, hero or not. We have this crazy situation where everything gets written up in some publication which by sheer force of weight gets accepted as a reliable source, and next thing you know we have a million YouTube "personalities" and other biographies of people who otherwise would live a peaceful two-sentence existence in a bigger article. I'm completely with Necrothesp: coverage is limited (of course) to the one event, and the rest is crystalballery. BTW, someone needs to explain to me, at some point, why a contestant on a TV dance show needs an article. Like, a real explanation please, not one that says "Entertainment Tonight mentioned his name three times, as did Perez Hilton". Drmies (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (probably nothing useful:)), funny when afds become longer then the article concerned, "The lowest grade, which these gentlemen were awarded, is very common and cannot possibly be said to confer inherent notability" - very common??, I don't have one, does anyone else involved in this discussion?, according to the wikiarticle Legion of Honour, as of 2010 there has only been about 100,000 issued, if we can have thousands of articles about academy award winners and sports people ("competed at the modern Olympic Games" is notable WP:NOLYMPICS - 1000s compete at each Olympics eg. over 10,000 at London) why can't recipients of this honor (and obes, mbes as well:)) have an article (and no, I am not volunteering to do them:))? Also, is the WP:SOLDIER comment relevant as this person is receiving the award as a civilian? If this article is redirected, won't there arise balance/undue weight issues in the main article? "it's only a WP:BLP1E situation" which states "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met" (my emphasis) can someone please show where this is the case here as I have not been convinced by the 'deleters'. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coolabahapple, WP:CRIME advises: A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.. There are at least 5 people whose actions on the train are highly notable (2 French (one whose full name is not known), 3 US, 1 UK). Is the reader better served by all of the relevant info being in one place (inc. their honours) or being spread across 5-6 articles? Pincrete (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pincrete, fair point about WP:CRIME, although I have been involved in/and read afds where the idea that WP:GNG trumps other policies/guidelines has held sway. On the point about the other people involved, if they are seen as notable/more notable then Skarlatos I am sure an editor will remedy their non-article situation. If a reader is interested enough in the subject, a couple of clicks won't put them off. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment Only by the will of God will we know if this article will be deleted or not. CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe! But it's more likely to be the will of consensus based on policy and determined by the closing administrator. If you'd like to consider administrators to be servants of the Lord that is, of course, entirely up to you. Keegan (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should note that this is humor, and not to be taken seriously :) Keegan (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was being serious with a hint of humor ;P CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let’s face it, WP:BLP1E rule is somewhat subjective. For example, most Congressional Medal of Honor winners are low-viz people who earn their notability with one act of courage. If an individual captures the world’s attention like Skarlatos has, they should be notable enough for an individual Wikipedia page. There’s certainly enough independent, secondary source material to do a good article on him including information about his personal life (which goes beyond his involvement in the train attack). The fact that he have now been selected to be on Dancing with the Stars is good evidence that his notoriety may go beyond just one event. One final point … all of the participants in the 2015 season of Dancing with the Stars now have individual bio articles in Wikipedia (along with all their professional dancing partners)…see Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 20). So are we going to delete Skarlatos bio article now and then add it back when he starts dancing?--Orygun (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If all there was was terror attack, then WP:BLP1E might apply. I do think it is too early to decide whether or not WP:BIO1E is indicated, per WP:CRYSTAL. But using BLP1E, this individual does not appear to meet all 3 criteria. All that said, with the announcement of his participation on DWTS, BLP1E clearly no longer applies. Onel5969 TT me 13:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FAlek_Skarlatos

Leave a Reply