Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trey Scott Atwater

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. The consensus below is that his participation in a single, minor event is insufficient to create encyclopedic notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Scott Atwater

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My major concern here, as expressed on the article's talk page, is WP:BLP1E—that is, the fact that the subject is notable for only one event. Given that this one event he's notable for is an accused crime, and a fairly serious one at that, I'm personally inclined in favor of deletion. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If someone thinks that an article about the event surpasses WP:NOTNEWS, they can write that article. But what this person did does not meet the exceptions for WP:BLP1E, and at this point the person hasn't even been convicted of a crime. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'll repeat here almost exactly what I had already said on the article talk page: As its stands, this article is not strictly a biography. It is more about two closely related events concerning a member of the US armed forces carrying explosives on civil aircraft. The article possibly passes WP:GNG - but does its human subject? No. Is there a case for deleting per WP:BLP1E, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS and/or WP:RECENT? Yes. Is there a case for an article about military people carrying explosives in civil aircraft? Possibly, but but as Qwyrx says, someone should write it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP/NOTNEWS argument. Oh, and Shoos, it's also a declined PROD...you didn't mention that... Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice it, and in any case, it's not really relevant to the deletion discussion here. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it should be noted that Purplebackpack89's vote should be disregarded as per consensus at ANI for his near constant hounding of all my edits. He has agreed to the MelanieN proposal that limited his edits to topics with which I was not directly involved in.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the venue for you two to continue slinging mud at each other. Take it to AN/I if you feel you have to. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NOTNEWS is obvious here. Note the amount of unencyclopedic detail, some of which was reinstated here (and subsequently reported). This is written like a news story, with a plethora of redundant detail stuck in there to suggest there is an encyclopedic subject here, and the edit summary, "the dealings of the case are of note and have been widely reported," also indicates that we're dealing with a rehashing of the news. To cite but one example: "His lawyer, Jason Leach, also stated that Atwater was willing to comply with the terms of his release." Of course his lawyer said that. Has there ever been a lawyer who would have said the opposite? This has all the hallmarks of a NOTNEWS/1E topic and should be deleted. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject clearly meets the GNG and notability is not temporary. In the worst case scenario BLP1E suggests that if the content is of note a move to something like 2011 C4 incident covering the event is in order. Also there are non PERP issues as the subject of the charges does not deny having committed the act, simply that he did so by accident. This is a rather unique event as well. I don't think this has ever happened before whereas peolple attempt to board with knives and guns quotidianly.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG clearly. Unique event.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then each individual case of a weapon found at an airport is notable. That's an average of four per day, as long as, I suppose, they are charged with something--which would include the Georgia man with the loaded 22, at the bottom of that USA Today article I linked. I don't see what's unique or meaningful here. Drmies (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This isn't a case about a weapon, it's a case about explosives and no its not every day a green beret tries to board with a bomb. This article needs to be viewed on its own merits not on speculative opinions of other unrelated dissimilar events worthiness.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It has no merits. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Merits is a rather opinion based argument falling under IDONTLIKEIT.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        That's just your opinion. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems that WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS applies here. There may be significant credible coverage but and that makes the event notable not the person. WP:RECENT probably precludes an article about the event at this point, but as this unfolds it may be worth writing. EricSerge (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment then doesn't that show a case for a simple move to an event based article?LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Run-of-the-mill person in the news for only one thing is what WP:BLP1E is designed to prevent. Nothing particularly notable about the incident itself either. Women walk into shopping mall fountains, flight attendants get drunk and swear and quite their job, a judge gets recorded beating his daughter (I could link to all those AfDs that resulted in a delete), but I do not have the time/inclination) ... All are interesting news blips that the drive-by media screams about for a few days while waiting for another white woman to be kidnapped. We're not a newspaper. Tarc (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, that judge was deleted? Good. And the Heineken-drinking flight attendant too? Good. Tarc, what is your twitterfeed? I need to stay more aware of the news. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename to incident - the incident might be notable; the person is not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a textbook case of WP:BLP1E to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a textbook violation of WP:BLP1E. I see no reason why the incident should be presumed to have any lasting notability, so it also doesn't meet WP:NOTNEWS. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear example of WP:BLP1E event itself doesn't warrant an article either per WP:NOTNEWS RadioFan (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of people are citing not news as well, so it should be noted that it does not conflict with moving to an article based on the event. This should be okay then since this is not breaking news it's simply a recent development and if we make it about the event then it does have enduring notability and avoids BLP issues.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS has absolutely nothing to do with whether its a breaking or historical event. The question is whether the event in question is anything other than mere routine news coverage. I won't speak for others, but I think that this clearly falls into that category: one guy is alleged to have committed one crime. Not a particularly big crime, either, nor one that, even if convicted, will carry a large sentence. No one died, no one was hurt, no one lost any money...this "event" simply does not have the notability required to have its own article. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes it does, when you read it it states "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information." So any opposition to move it to an article about the incidents?LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This really hasn't unfolded to be a bigger story that could be viewed as historically significant. The attempted carrying of unauthorized objects on to aircraft is pretty run of the mill. Search the web and there are a lot of reliable sources about those kind of stories. However, this story has not developed beyond that, and is likely not encyclopedic. WP:Notability (events) seems like a good place to look for guidance. This event will likely not have a lasting effect. It lacks depth of coverage , five of the cited sources are repeats of the same info from the AP or Reuters (look at the authors of the articles). It lacks duration of coverage (at this point) with most sources coming from the first week of January. Sorry mate the event does not seem to have notability at this point. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BLP1E Mt king ^(edits) 02:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The person is notable only for one event. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Rather than a "rescue" tag, this article needs a "NOTNEWS violation" tag as we read "This brought him international press coverage" (and a Wikipedia article!). He played football, he joined the army, he was admonished, he was arrested—delete and recreate after something encyclopedic becomes available. Johnuniq (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. The essay WP:109PAPERS is relevant here as well; not everything which is widely covered is appropriate material for an encyclopedia. Horologium (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2012 (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.