Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JetBlue flight attendant incident

JetBlue flight attendant incident

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

I think it might be time to re-examine this article for meeting the inclusion standards for a stand alone article. It cannot be denied that volumes of news sources exist documenting the incident, but I think a little common sense should be applied in this case. Despite all the coverage, now that time has passed, in hind-sight this was one event that has had little lasting effects on the industry or the profession. There are also some BLP concerns here. Truly, I think had he not deployed the emergency shoot (which was the tabloid-esque hook that media outlets latched onto), and simply stormed off the job in the regular way, I don't think it would've even made more than the local news, if at all. In short, this incident received attention only because of the sensational aspects of the story. I suggest perhaps merging some of the content, abridged, to: JetBlue Airways#Incidents and accidents. Note: He also has his own little asterisked section at the bottom of the notable Flight attendant list. Ditch ∝ 13:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note - (from talk page) An article on Steven Slater was deleted on 17 August 2010, following a deletion discussion. After a deletion review, an article about the incident (titled "JetBlue Flight 1052") was created using the page history from the Steven Slater article, and immediately nominated for deletion. This article was kept following the deletion discussion. The article was subsequently renamed to "JetBlue flight attendant incident." --Oakshade (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Person quits retail job, leaves via emergency exit that triggers alarm. Would that merit a Wikipedia article? Clearly no and neither should this. WP:RECENTISM and no lasting impact....William 15:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Huge amount of very significant coverage, obviously passing WP:GNG and is a major part of the air passenger experience public consciousness. The arguments above seem WP:IDONTLIKEIT ("I think had he not deployed the emergency shoot ..." "Person quits retail job ..." ). There could've been no emergency shoot and he simply stormed off the job and this could've still been notable, as long as the very significant coverage is there. As for WP:RECENTISM, this is still getting coverage years later.[1][2][3]. Clearly a case with longevity. --Oakshade (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WilliamJE. There's a section in JetBlue Airways that's appropriate for something like this - just expand the Incidents and Accidents subsection to include incidents similar to this. Would be a more appropriate venue. Velinath (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It was famous for a few weeks because people thought it was funny, but it's not encyclopedically notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The inclusion standards mentioned by the OP seem to state that something is notable if it has received significant coverage in unrelated third-party sources, which this unquestionably has. Those standards further go on to say that it has nothing to do with how important something is, or how long ago it happened, if it has received the required degree of coverage. Yes, there are a lot of "if"s which would have made this incident less remarkable "if" they had happened differently, but they did not. As for the Merge options mentioned above, I've seen many an article that briefly covers a specific incident, with a link to the main article about said incident. Given the size of this article, that seems to me to be the best way to link this article from the JetBlue article, so this sort of makes the opposite case for a merge. Rails (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Admittedly, the subject seems much less important today than when the story broke. But the article meets the WP:GNG threshold. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG and continues to have some lasting significance. That incident continues to be a touchstone event referenced in articles about similar events--look at this GNews search of recent stories, for example[4]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge No lasting significance. --BDD (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really notable and media coverage was only local. Flight attendant goes barmy is not a defining feature for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If by "local" coverage you mean in the United Kingdom [5], Italy [6][7], Spain [8], Germany [9], India [10], Brazil [11], Uruguay [12] and many others, then yes, it was just "local." --Oakshade (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage, continues to be part of public consciousness. CapitalSasha ~ talk 23:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non encycolpedic trivia Greglocock (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a section of the Jet Blue Wiki page. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, while this has indeed received quite a bit of coverage, how much WP:PERSISTENCE? And even if notable there's no need for anything more than a section on Jet Blue's page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Years later, it's still getting coverage.[13][14][15] --Oakshade (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. As it is being cited whenever similar incidents occur, that seems to indicate that the event has the "lasting significance" that WP:PERSISTENCE requires. Rails (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]