Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Morgan Perry

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. postdlf (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Morgan Perry

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

I saw this article while looking at Reddit. The way it is written, it sounds like a conspiracy theory. Also, the article claims that Perry is a former US Embassy Official, but reading the linked article from the Mail, it only says he claimed to be one during what appears to be a mental breakdown of such magnitude that the passengers on the airplane had to restrain him. Furthermore the bit about "The story briefly became a worldwide sensation, but has subsequently gone unreported" and "his current whereabouts are unknown" sound like a cheap novel. Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 11. Snotbot t • c » 01:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire. Ultimately once you strip all of the sensationalism from the article what you ultimately have is "Daniel Perry is a man who had a mental breakdown on a plane and claimed he knew where Snowden was. Because the media likes to point and laugh at a nutter when it's related to something that's actually newsworthy, here are a handful of news articles." This is pretty much the epitome of WP:BLP1E when you get down to it. This might just barely qualify for A7, as there's no credible claim to notability here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that- the Leagle source does list him as a FSO. This would put him just barely out of the reach of A7. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the worst of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had listed this for speedy deletion but was surprised to see it denied. This is just a case of someone having a mental breakdown, something that is not uncommon. If it happened at your local shops it wouldn't rate a mention anywhere. The fact that it happened on a plane, and he mentioned Snowden does not increase his notability. That's just the media looking for something to talk about. --Dmol (talk) 04:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. I beg to differ. This is not just someone having a mental breakdown on a plane. You say that it is "just the media looking for something to talk about", but this was a trailed massively in the international media, on major news outlets such as Sky TV and The Daily Mail. Even the International Herald Tribune, that last resort of conspiracy theorists, devoted an article to it in their print edition. I agree that if it happened at your local shop it would not rate a mention. The fact that it dovetails intensely with the Snowden story, one of the absolute touchstone news stories of 2013, increases its notability massively. Notability according to Wikipedia is something "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". It might be more appropriate to move the article to a Steve_Bartman_incident-esque page. Google "His current whereabouts are unknown" and you will find a string of links to the FBI and the National Counterterrorism Center. I take your point 'Two kinds of pork' and will endeavour to rework it a little. Orthorhombic, 14:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair notice, I'm reverting back to my version. Your version is way, way non-neutral and dramatically oversensationalizes everything. I have no political stance on the article. I also feel that your version is full of original research, as there is nothing to suggest that this is anything other than a man with a history of mental illness having a mental breakdown on a plane and the media using it as something to poke at. Also, the Daily Mail is far from being a reliable source. It's pretty much the British equivalent of the National Enquirer and they're known for oversensationalizing things and sometimes even outright distorting the truth to the point where it's almost a lie. There aren't enough reliable sources to show that this is anything more than one sad event in this guy's life. The coverage isn't enough to show that this is more than WP:BLP1E. IF and I repeat IF this does pan out into anything more, then it can be re-created, but I doubt it will. I must state again that this is just one event in the life of a man with a history of severe mental illness. There is no reason to keep this article. I don't see where keeping this benefits Wikipedia in the slightest. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean come on... saying "he's been missing since the airport" brings in all sorts of connotations. You're pretty much implying that the government swept in and took him off somewhere. You see, it might not be that. It could just be that he's tucked away in a mental institution somewhere. Or it could be that he was put on a medication that allowed him to see how crazy he was acting and is staying out of the media spotlight because he's pretty much embarrassed. There are a lot of reasons he's not in the public spotlight and writing things of that nature pretty much put in so many connotations that we try so hard to avoid here. I think my version should stay as it is or at least it shouldn't have all fo the previous stuff added back in. I really, really don't think that we could or should add any of the previous version's material back in. And I have to repeat- this is not political. This is about neutrality and looking at this beyond one event in a person's life that isn't of any true notability. This is Wikipedia, not a political conspiracy site. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED automatically just because Snowden was mentioned. You have to prove that the two events are actually related, rather than what this seems like: a man with a mental illness that caused a disturbance on a plane. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. A nonnotable person or incident does not become encyclopedic because someone raved about someone else who is in the news spotlight. Absent conspiracy theories, there is nothing here that might belong in an encyclopedia. Edison (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is a person claiming to be Daniel Morgan Perry without signifiant coverage in the media. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire - per WP:BLP1E and WP:V. There's nothing encyclopedic about this person at this point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simple news story only. Plus the title implies it's a biography article, which it's not. --Light show (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear-cut case of BLP1E. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seven deletes to one keep- I think we can snow close this at this point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:27, 14 July 2013 (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.