Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motorized recliner incident

Motorized recliner incident

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

This article discussess a single incident and has no enduring enduring historical significance or a significant lasting effect. Coverage is not in-depth or of relevance outside where it occured. Incident was widely reported internationally as light news trivia. See also Wikipedia:EVENT and Wikipedia:WIDESPREAD#Don.27t_create_an_article_on_a_news_story_covered_in_109_newspapers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It had coverage in newspapers in countries all over the world, January through November of 2009. It went beyond a watercooler story which numerous paper covered in one news cycle. It is comparable to the story of Larry Walters flying to great heights in a lawnchair lifted by weather balloons. Edison (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment There's no question of coverage, but enduring significance / notability is another issue. There is equivalent coverage on many similar incidents (google 'motorised drink driving') - including bar stools, beer coolers and wheelchairs. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If articles were determined to be non-notable because similar subjects with equivalent coverage in RS exist, we wouldn't have many left. Besides, nearly a year of international coverage in RS is enduring, by any reasonable definition of the term. Which of your similar incidents have achieved this level of notoriety'? Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While coverage appears to have lasted Nov-april, international coverage was limited to mentioning the incident. The article itself refers to an almost identical case (Kile Wygle). More noteworthy cases could (in terms of media and as legal test cases) can be found at [[1]] (note title 'another') and [[2]] Clovis Sangrail (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Edison. Also, this incident was described in a law review article [3]. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWS, ~~WP:ONEEVENT~~ WP:EVENT twaddle, a stupid human-interest story one finds at the end of their local news alongside heartwarming stories of the dog that can bark Ode to Joy or the 90 year old farmer still on the job. Tarc (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe we should have articles on the other two topics you mentioned. Good suggestions. Edison (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully (for the project's sake) I made them up. Tarc (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're effectively arguing that the article should be deleted because you find it to be "twaddle" and "a stupid human-interest story". This is a classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, festooned with irrelevant policies. Invoking WP:ONEEVENT is silly, since the article is about the event, not one of the participants. WP:NOTNEWS is a deprecated redirect, designed to draw attention to just this sort of misuse of a "potentially misleading shortcut". The actual policy title is "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". It allows "development of stand-alone articles on significant current events" but doesn't permit "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities". Incidents receiving major international attention are seldom routine news reporting. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you have a bug up your backside against my position at WT:NOT doesn't mean you get to carry your snideness to other venues, so dial it back a bit, will you? As for WP:ONEEVENT, that was a mistake on my part, I meant to link to the main event notability guideline at WP:EVENT. There is not lasting effect of this incident, no wide-reaching effect. It is just one very ridiculous story that poppped into the news for a few days, everyone has a chuckle over it, and then it is swiftly forgotten. We get hundreds of these AfDs a year because some yahoo sees a funny headline and scrambles here to write an article about it, whether it is the woman who fell into a shopping mall fountain while texting or a news reporter seems to have a stroke while on-air. These sorts of things are always judged by WP:NOTNEWS standards and quickly deleted. My call to delete is based on a sound argument used many, many times in the past. If you disagree, fine, but try to contain your responses to the realm of the rational. Tarc (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, your "sound argument" is to take a subject with months of coverage, as described by Edison, and counterfactually describe it as having "poppped into the news for a few days"? Your imploring me "to contain your responses to the realm of the rational" is deeply ironic. This AFD may ultimately involve a philosophically profound discussion of the nature of reality: is the chronological length of coverage an objective fact, or can it be transmuted according to one's desires, just by imagining it to be so? Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing how many words you can use and not actually address what someone says. Recap; guy hooks up an engine to a la-z-boy, guy gets arrested, everyone enjoys the lulz. End of story. No lasting significance, no continued coverage. Just a dumb news blip and it is gone. Similarly trivial news-of-the-day junk has received far, far more coverage than this shit, and has been easily deleted. This one should be a no-brainer, but in the end it all depends on who shows up to weigh in. Tarc (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good amount of secondary source coverage for an article to be retained on Wikipedia on this subject matter and its topic. — Cirt (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]