Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Smeaton (baggage handler) (2nd nomination)

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 merge to 2007 Glasgow International Airport Attack, with no prejudice against recreation if he gains further notability. A redirect is being formed. I will leave it up to interested editors to figure out precise merge details. JoshuaZ 18:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Smeaton (baggage handler)

A BLP violation for a person notable for just one event; we can shout COATRACK and various other things too. This person does not deserve his own article and it will never be a biography. He had a moment of fame on the Internet and does deserve inclusion - in the 2007 Glasgow International Airport Attack not in an article of his own. Survived an AFD a month and a half ago - let us hope that anons don't come and ruin the precedings this time. violet/riga (t) 14:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my choice is to delete the article. Some content may be merged into the article noted above but this does not need a redirect because of the unlikelihood that the full title would be typed in - just include a note atop John Smeaton. violet/riga (t) 16:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would still think a redirect would be more appropriate. He is a baggage handler, and it complies with WP:MOS.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Did you read my comments on the WT:HARM and the John Smeaton talk page? Anyway, as the user who suggested these things less than an hour ago, I suggest a merge and redirect to part of the 2007 Glasgow International Airport Attack article with the section headlined as John Smeaton.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But yes, it fails WP:BLP1E, WP:COATRACK and WP:PSEUDO, although deletion is not the answer. You could have been bold and done this yourself, although it was my idea and I didn't want to...-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although having said that, you could make a case that the Kafeel Ahmed and Mohammed Asha articles suffer from the exact same problems.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is always a great thing to do. The merge would've been reverted and could've led to further disputes. violet/riga (t) 14:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you could be right there, but I don't think many Wikipedians would favour outright deletion over a merge...-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't either, but this is the best place to discuss such a thing. violet/riga (t) 14:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While there is some information that is relevant, the whole thing is inappropriate. merge and redirect to 2007 Glasgow International Airport Attack. Consider protecting the redirect. Circeus 14:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was thinking of a protected redirect too - that is, if anyone still remembers John Smeaton after his 15 minutes of fame.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per WP:NOT#NEWS - This guy's known for one event, with little historic notability for him. He should be mentioned in the main article, but does not need a page for a 1 event celebrity. Corpx 15:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, per Corpx - Nabla 16:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect (without deleting), because really well-referenced article and individual involved with event that attracted widespread media attention. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my note at the top about the unlikelihood that anyone would type in such an article title. violet/riga (t) 16:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see my comment refuting that.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The individual has no notability outside this one event. There is no long-term historical notability here. --Malcolmxl5 16:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Sure, he achieved media glorification but is that a claim to notability? Onnaghar ^{tl | co} 16:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd strongly consider the delete voters to consider agreeing to merging the content about him into the attack article as part of the media response.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember this being up before whilst the newsprint was still wet... the acid test was always going to be long-term notability, which this has failed (per Malcolmxl5 above). I'd prefer delete, but will support a merge to 2007 Glasgow International Airport Attack if that's the way this discussion goes. EyeSerene^TALK 16:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd go along with the merge, but as EyeSerene says, I'd prefer a delete. Onnaghar ^{tl | co} 18:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment. Smeaton didn't just help the police and people injured by the bomb, he launched a flying kick against Bilal Abdullah. I think that's relevant to the attack itself.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. You may merge some info though.--Svetovid 20:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notability is defined as being 'worthy of attracting notice'. John Smeaton is clearly notable given the media coverage. Whether he merits a biography, on the other hand, is another matter.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per WP:NOT#NEWS. He is notable for his heroic actions, and got a splash of publicity afterwards. A short mention in the article on the attack would be appropriate. Newsworthy but not encyclopedic. Edison 22:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge while currently slightly "notable", this will dissipate. Jmlk 1 7 04:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The current consensus is that notability does not decrease over time; it can only be cumulative - it either stays of a fixed notability or increases with more WP:RS published about the topic.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the unusual ground for a keep, that WP NOT CRYSTAL. Who can say the importance will dissipate, and on the basis of what sources? He's important now. This was not exactly a minor crime that he prevented, and the public and the press are quite right that it was important. His character as the archetypical Glaswegian is rather notable also.. DGG (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We should merge it for now, but he can get a full biography in future if he becomes notable for anything else. This, however, seems unlikely as he has returned to his day job.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 08:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is better suited if it is merged as explained above, not notable outside of this event.--JForget 00:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - per notability. ps Maybe in a few years this can be revisited? --Tom 18:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason why a sourced, referenced article about someone covered at length by multiple, independent non-trivial sources should be deleted. I have a sneaking suspicion this is our old friend systemic bias again; why are we not having this discussion about Todd Beamer? — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This was nominated by a Brit. Nominate Todd Beamer and I think you may well get a similar result to the unanimous keep two years ago - the difference is that Beamer has had recognition in the form of a school being named after him. violet/riga (t) 17:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll decline that challenge - for the first time in months my talk page only has one person complaining about my mean & nasty deletionism. As a veteran of some of the all-time great AfD catfights (albeit, I did manage to stay out of the most impressive of them all), let someone else get shouted at for once... — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at the very least Merge & Redirect into the main article on the attack. I tend to agree with User:Iridescent about the possibilities for violation of WP:CSB and can't help thinking that what we have here is merely a UK version of Wesley Autrey. The only policy-based reason for deletion that I can see is WP:BLP1E - but, like Autrey, the sources about him have extended outside his actual involvement in the event, this time into the realms of citizens fighting back against crime in general. ELIMINATORJR 18:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable baggage handler 24.60.163.16 08:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- a notable Scottish hero, with notable achievements in his field, and since the attacks. He will continue to be notable in Scotland for his heroism. Astrotrain 08:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even me knowing his name makes him notable as far as I'm concerned! Biofoundationsoflanguage 10:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article on attack.Harlowraman 17:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. If his entire claim for notability comes from the 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack, then his story should be told there, succinctly and simply. If, however, he ends up being Knighted as Sir John Smeaton by The Queen, or otherwise given high official honors on a national level from the Parliament or a Ministry or other governmental body, then he begins to become notable on his own. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 17:27, 24 August 2007 (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.