Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orio Palmer

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. General consensus indicates that the subject is notable for his actions and role in the investigation. Note that the current version differs greatly from the AfD-tagged version. (non-admin closure) Guoguo12 --Talk-- 16:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orio Palmer

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

Non-notable WP:ORPHAN stub article. Victim of September 11 attacks but does not meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Also, article falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Nominating individually based upon earlier AFD. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This battalion chief of the New York Fire Department climbed to the 78th floor of the World Trade Center South Tower and filed informative radio reports about the carnage in the moments before the building collapsed. He is not just another fatality - his unique observations make him notable. Cullen328 (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Leading a team that reached the 78th floor is not criteria that meets Wikipedia's notability standards. This does not significantly set him apart from other firefighters or civilians who were victims of the attacks. The article as it stands contains anecdotal information and nothing that would meet notability standards. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is Palmer's accomplishment of climbing 78 floors, while burdened with very heavy fireman's gear, notable? Are his reports from the 78th floor noteable? The collapse of these buildings remains highly controversial. There are dozens of different conspiracy theories. And Palmer's accomplishment, and the meaning of what he reported, are cited and debated by parties on all side of these debates. An example follows. David Ray Griffin is a notable 9-11 theorist. Ryan Mackey is a rocket scientist, who is challenging Griffin's challenges to the mainstream descriptions of what happened to the buildings. Here Mackey specifically challenges Griffin's interpretation of Palmer's account of what he found on the 78th floor. No offense but I therefore believe you are quite mistaken to assert nothing sets Palmer aside from the 342 firefighters. Geo Swan (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Mackey (2007-08-31). "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin's Latest Criticism of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation" (PDF). Jet Propulsion Laboratory. ...accompanying this description, indeed shows exactly two areas of relatively small fires – one near the point of impact in the southeast corner, and a larger one corresponding to the denser area of combustible furniture in the northeast corner. Thus, NIST's results are totally consistent with Chief Palmer's comments. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Delete per the given arguments and cited policies of the nominator. IQinn (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Nominator forgot to provide a link to the {{afd}} of February 2nd, 2011 -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edelmiro Abad. Geo Swan (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the people who died on 9/11 wouldn't meet our standards for notability. Leading a team that reached the 78th floor seems to be what does significantly set him apart from other persons when it comes to coverage, as evidenced by a wide range of books published long after 9/11 [1]. Mandsford 01:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to WP:NOTMEMORIAL -- A {{db-person}} was placed on this article fifteen months ago, asserting the article lapsed from WP:NOTMEMORIAL. On Talk:Orio Palmer I agreed that almost none of the victims and survivors of 9-11 will merit separate articles, but I thought I offered strong reasons why Palmer should be an exception. Geo Swan (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've expanded the article, adding information from three books published 4 to 5 years after the event, demonstrating Palmer's notability in the history of firefighting and September 11. Cullen328 (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Palmer is clearly one of exceptional individuals associated with 9-11 who does merit a separate article, for the reasons offered above. Geo Swan (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Say what? I don't mean to be callous here, but he didn't actually do anything but...die in the WTC. Yes, the recovered recordings provide some interesting insight into the moments before thew tower collapse. Reading the "keep" opinions here makes it sound like he personally carried an armload of children and a balanced basket of newborn kittens on his head to safety or something. Less Appeal to emotion and more rationality here, please. Tarc (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sorry, but there just isn't anything here. It's great that they were able to play the recordings for loved ones to provide a sense of closure. Not notable for this, not for any events prior to 9/11. Being a battalion chief in itself doesn't quite meet notability guidelines as the Chief position did for William Feehan. Tarc (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What's important, according to our notability policy, is what reliable sources say about the topic, not whether one Wikipedia editor personally thinks the topic is notable, or another doesn't. I've expanded the article, which now has ten references from reliable sources that discuss this man in depth, and begin to put his significance into historical context. Therefore, he's notable. Cullen328 (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just being mentioned in a reliable source is not the final arbiter of worthiness fore a Wikipedia article, this is a common mistake of inexperienced editors. We have other criteria that must be satisfied, such as "is the person only known for one event?" As an example, go search for that JetBlue flight attendant who pitched a drunken hissy fit last year. No standalone article, because he was only in the news for that one thing. Tarc (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response Tarc links above to Biography of a living person - one event which is not at all applicable here, because Palmer is dead. The relevant and comparable policy is WP:BIO1E, which reads, in part: "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination." I would submit that Orio Palmer's role in this event of "sufficient importance" equals or exceeds Howard Brennan's role in the Kennedy assassination. Cullen328 (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was said to have played an "indispensable role in ensuring calm in the stairwells, assisting the injured and guiding the evacuees on the lower floors."[10] Those whose lives he helped save surely think he's notable, as does the news media covering that event. Footage of him used in a documentary. Dream Focus 02:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy keep~~Snow close, early keep. Clearly sufficient notability, as reflected in the refs and other sources that can be found in a google search, to meet GNG. That an article is an orphan -- and I "fixed" that in a minute (as nom could have done as well if it troubled him) -- is no reason to delete.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you could, please explain which of the 5 criteria listed at Wikipedia:SK#Applicability that you feel justifies your call for a speedy keep. Tarc (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Let's make it a "speedy close", rather than a "Speedy close".--Epeefleche (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A speedy keep is usually done when there is something wrong, flawed, or unreasonable with the original nomination. A snow close is invoked when the outcome of the discussion is so obviously clear (e.g. lopsided votes) that waiting the full 7 days for the discussion is deemed unnecessary. That is, arguably, worse; you've gone from attacking the nominator to trying to undercut the discussion itself, a discussion which is certain;y not one-sided. Not that we should be bean-counting, but after 1 day we have the 1nom+2 deletes vs. 5 keeps. IMO, that is a healthy and reasonable split of opinion, so let's just let it run its course, eh? Tarc (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO the outcome of this AfD is that clear. Whether it is closed as a keep -- as it is running at the moment -- or a "no consensus revert to keep, the result seems obvious. The nom's rationale was partly built on misunderstanding (that an orphan is reason for delete), and was in part built on facts that no longer exist (such as the orphan status of the article), so even the "negative" remarks have been undercut by analysis and editing. It's not "worse" to point that out. It is "better" -- if a clear keep can be closed early, we save constructive editors time that they would otherwise waste here, and could better apply to improving the project rather than flush it down the toilet in a meaningless manner.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Epeefleche (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I've expanded the article further, adding information from the 9/11 Commission Report demonstrating Palmer's notability. The article now has 11 solid references. Cullen328 (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mandsford's sound analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient coverage in reliable sources exists to demonstrate notability. Robofish (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that the sources added to the article that he has notability beyond simply dying in a terrorist attack. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep quite notable before the 9/11 attack as a Battalion Chief of the NYPD, and certainly notable for his role in that history changing event as well. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:ONEEVENT. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is our editing policy to keep such material rather than to delete it. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2011 (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.