Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Waddle

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus, defaulting to delete, then to redirect. Opinions were all over the board on this one. A strong strain of argument favored apply WP:BLP1E, and certainly, that has a great deal of force. The subject does not appear to have been treated independently apart from the tragic circumstances of the fishermen's deaths. The keep arguments point to the numerous citations present in the article, as well as others outside of the article uncovered by those involved in this discussion. These sources would seem to permit the creation of an encyclopedic article. There also is significant current favoring merger to the featured article Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision. The juxtaposition of these view boils down to this: should we require the subject of the article, and his family, to bear the growing pains of this article, including vandalism, while the article matures? In this case, where there is such a well-developed complimentary article, I feel BLP requires that this question be answered in favor of removing this article. There will be little loss of content, as virtually everything in this stub is contained in the collision article. After deletion I will add a redirect to Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision If someone is willing to take responsibilty for developing and watching this article, I'd be happy to userfy. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC) N.B. Per add'l discussion on my talk page I've agreed to restore the non-vandalism history of the article. It remains redirected to Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Waddle

[edit]
Scott Waddle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The subject of this article was involved in a one-time event. Before and since that event, the subject has not been notable in any way. Furthermore, the article has been the subject of defamatory vandalism which was in the article for several hours. Since Wikipedia currently has no adequate system for preventing this type of abuse of BLPs (semi-protection is only applied when the vandalism is frequent), articles such as this should be deleted since we can't adequately safeguard them. Cla68 (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional keep. As the author of a book which has itself appeared to receive reasonably significant coverage, as well as his involvement in the original incident, there is a viable article to be written on the topic – but this is such a mess, if nobody's willing to clean it up – and take responsibility for keeping it clean – I'd say it's better to wipe it out and start again with a clean slate; he's not so essential a topic that we need an article on him (only six incoming links from other articles). Otherwise, salvage what can be salvaged to the "Later events" subsection of Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision. – iridescent 00:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I don't buy the "this is a BLP so it might get vandalized" argument; deleting individual articles is putting a band-aid on a shotgun blast. Unless we delete every BLP, and every non-BLP that might mention a living person, or until the foundation come up with a viable BLP protection policy (I'm not holding my breath), things like this are going to happen. Not good and not right, but we have to start from where we are, not where we'd like to be. – iridescent 00:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep between the event, the book, and the lecturing career, he meets WP:N. This isn't a case of being known for only a one-time event but rather a case of being known for a one-time event and its sequelae. JJL (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Contra JJL, the subject doesn't quite escape BLP1E for me. In particular, I see no added value to having this when we already have Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision; could put a sentence there to summarise what's useful from here. Rd232 talk 03:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a typical vulnerable BLP. His article is watchlisted by basically no one and it's infrequently edited. Since the notability appears to be borderline anyway, I default to delete per the nom. He is not being protected by Wikipedia. Enigmamsg 03:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision. Everything in this article is better described there. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The one event sparked different other things, so he's not notable for just the one event. Also WP:NOEFFORT is not a valid reason for deletion, especially when it is semi-protected for a long time. - Mgm|(talk) 12:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Sparked different other things"? That really depends on where you draw the line, doesn't it. Book, lecture tour (no source given for that, and no details so notability hard to judge) wouldn't have happened if the event hadn't. That's a very strong dependency which to me makes it WP:BLP1E. Also I don't see the book passing WP:BK, not least as the publisher is a small one which has a hint of self-publisher about it ([1]). Finally, I don't see a single source in the article which is not primarily about the One Event. Rd232 talk 13:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment a gsearch on his name provides copious evidence of his lecturing career (e.g. [2], [3], [4], [5]). An article that puts his career in broader perspective, from Newsweek: [6]. There are lots of scholar hits; for example, [7] is a book on the importance of apologizing, discussing what Scott Waddle did post-incident (see also [8], [9], [10], [11], for instance). I feel that his trip to Japan to apologize was a separate event. It wouldn't have happened without the first one but it was not only not inevitable, it was quite unexpected and is now oft-cited in works on apologies and U.S.-Japan relations. Those are from Google Scholar; you'll find more in Google Books. JJL (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of which flows from the incident and for me is better handled as part of that - or if it is significant for apologies, then somewhere else related to that. The Newsweek article is a perfect example: it follows on from the Navy's formal inquiry "the week before". The Dissent article, 6 months later about apologies, only mentions Waddle in passing at the end. Rd232 talk 14:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for his lecture career (which seems to flow entirely from the One Event), we need reliable secondary sources to establish its notability, not primary ones to establish its existence. Rd232 talk 15:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the one event is notable enough, the person is. It's absurd to argue whether continuing coverage or discussions for an event is a separate event--the test is the notability of the event. DGG (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The quote marks gave a certain ambiguity. And I don't know what to say to someone who flatout rejects established policy. Usually people just interpret it into irrelevance if they disagree... ! Rd232 talk 18:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - the article itself sucks ass. what's with every single news report this poor guy has been named in listed as a ref, but no inline ref's to specific things? I guess I'm ok with keeping, provided it stays at the least semi-, if not full protected, and it gets cleaned up. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's hard to judge how big of a deal his book and lecture tour are, and depending on how big a deal they are I could fall on either side of this debate. My first inclination was to compare him to William Rodriguez, another person notable for basically one event and then the stuff he did afterwards, but in that case I think the stuff he did afterwards was fairly prominent, making it a much easier decision than this. In any case, this AfD is starting to look a lot like it's gonna get closed as no consensus, and right now my own opinion is divided just as much as the !votes are, so just commenting. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge Actually...if I had to !vote one way or another right now, I think Iridescent's solution (merge to Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision) is a good one. We could argue all day over the guidelines, our moral standpoints on bla bla bla, what sort of precedent this would set, what it means for WP, etc.... but when it comes down to it, for this particular article at this particular point in time, merging certainly seems to be the most practical solution. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      "No consensus"? Yours is the eighth delete/redirect/merge opinion against 4 Keeps (2 of which seem to be based on ignoring or rejecting policy (WP:BLP1E) rather than discussing its particular application/interpretation here). Rd232 talk 13:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I may have miscounted. Anyway, I said that because as far as I can tell, other than the first couple comments, most of them are just simple votes with nothing but "keep, per so-and-so" or "delete, per nom". I don't see a clear consensus yet. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment a redirect/merge is generally counted as a form of keep, I think. Merging is an editorial decision. JJL (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Technicality. A delete/redirect/merge discussion outcome is counted as a "keep" because it doesn't require an admin to hit the delete button. But it still concludes that there should not be an independent article. Rd232 talk 18:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision. I actually don't think there is much to merge, since most info in this bio is already mentioned in the article on the one event. --Crusio (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Iridescent. I especially agree with the point that an article being vandalized is not a rationale for deletion, otherwise we'd have to deleted most featured articles. Second choice would be Merge to Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision. Edward321 (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Re vandalism: what relevance do featured articles have to this? Featured articles are watched by many, and usually not BLPs, so less likely to attract vandalism harmful to a person. Whereas BLPs on people of low notability (everybody's notable to someone for something; it's a spectrum not an either/or) are little watched, and may attract harmful vandalism. So the encyclopedic value of keeping such marginal BLPs (versus covering the subject elsewhere, not versus complete deletion of the material) needs to be weighed against a number of issues, and harm from actual or potential vandalism should be one of them. IMHO. Rd232 talk 14:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision. Serious WP:BLP1E issues here, but it is a somewhat plausible search term. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. The main idea about WP:BLP1E is to protect the privacy of victims of a single event. I cannot see that a person who has written and published a reasonably well-known book about the event needs protection like that. The fact that he has been a reasonably high-profile keynote speaker on the topic of marine responsibility [12] means there is considerable interest in the person Scott Waddle, not merely the event he was involved in. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Privacy protection is just one rationale for BLP1E; but "interest in the person ... not merely the event he was involved in" is precisely when privacy protection is needed! (Otherwise it isn't an issue.) In any case it is not obvious the publishing a book and giving some lectures on the One Event should be understood as turning the person into a Public Figure for whom privacy is not an issue. Separately, there are also issues of maintainability and whether there is any actual WP:RS material on the person as opposed to the event (which would permit an actual bio worth mentioning); and whether there is any WP:RS secondary source coverage of the person or their deeds independent of the event. Rd232 talk 14:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't think of a better way to encourage anonymous vandalism than to delete its targets. Do you want to get someone's article off Wikipedia? Keep adding "And his daughter is a slut" to his article and articles about him. Good intentions, bad proposed outcome. A new way for vandals to rack up points for their exploits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Making decisions purely based on vandalism ("no! we can't let the vandals win, we can't delete!") lets the vandals win too. The major arguments here are about whether a separate article in this particular instance adds value. Rd232 talk 13:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Presence of vandalism needs to be dealt with. It is not an argument to delete articles about people who clearly meet WP:BIO. Moreover, there's no way that Waddle can even be plausibly be called a BLP1E or an individual of marginal notability given his long career and his work after the accident. Also note that the nominator has explicitly attempted to canvass for deletion [13]. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (bangs head against wall in frustration) Please address the entire AFD discussion, not merely the nomination. Vandalism is a secondary issue if the article clearly meets notability criteria - this we know. Articles about "people who clearly meet WP:BIO" should be kept, obviously. Now how about some actual evidence that Waddle meets WP:BIO? At the moment every single source we have relates to the event or its aftermath. We don't even have sources demonstrating substantial secondary WP:RS coverage of the book, never mind the lecture career - never mind the issue whether these should be covered by BLP1E, as I contend they should unless they have so much secondary coverage as to make Waddle notable purely based on those (WP:AUTHOR). Rd232 talk 19:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know in what universe you are operating in that every comment must address every single point brought up. I didn't address the other issues because their answers don't seem that complicated. But if you want I'll do so: First, if the substantive point of BLP1E and BLP issues in general is to Do-No-Harm, then having a Wikipedia article on this individual is clearly not doing harm aside from vandalism which can be easily dealt with. In fact, you agree in that regard. Moreover, Waddle has been willing (quite honorably) to be in the public eye post the accident. So dealing with BLP1E is already not necessary by itself. But this isn't a BLP1E. There has been almost years of coverage, which makes it extremely difficult to dismiss this as a one-time event. Even the NYT coverage by itself is extensive.
There is of course a large amount of coverage about him and his book. Example coverage focusing on the book include [14] [15] [16] [17]. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like a "large amount" to me from that (excluding event-related coverage). Anyway, what I'm complaining about is people missing the wood for the trees. Setting aside the fact that it's a BLP (and not wanting to delete anything just because it's a BLP of at-best marginal notability, which is a contentious point of view), is it useful to have this as a aeparate article? This has not been demonstrated, which is why people have voted for merging (not deleting). Case in point: does any of this "large amount" of coverage provide biographical background worth a damn? I haven't seen any. What's the point of a Biography of a Living Person if there are no verifiable reliable sources providing bio data? You might as well avoid unnecesary duplication and redirect to the event article, which already covers his Trip to Japan and should cover the book (and the lecture tour is of no demonstrated notability, but it could be mentioned there if need be). Rd232 talk 20:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and unconditional delete, just as we should delete all BLPs of marginally notable subjects. How can people argue in good conscience for keeping these things? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Easily. That's aside from the fact that one of the issues in dispute is precisely whether Waddle is marginally notable or not... JoshuaZ (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, we'll have to agree to disagree. Given the potential for harm to the subjects I feel strongly that we should delete all such BLPs unless there are patently obvious and compelling reasons to keep. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • But what constitute "such BLPs"? There needs to be a discussion about whether this individual is marginally notable or not. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • From my perspective the mere fact that "there needs to be a discussion" of notability decides the question. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • That can't be right. Under that logic once a single person thinks that someone is marginally notable it should get deleted. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • You don't seem to understand what "marginally notable" means. It doesn't mean "clearly not notable, don't include". It means that the subject is borderline notable and some people think it should be in and others out. Short Brigade Harvester Boris is simply saying that the very fact that the subject's notability isn't clearcut is reason enough to exclude. It's a perfect reasonable point of view; there's no need to rehash here all the general arguments for and against it, so I won't; I'm sure you're familiar with them. Rd232 talk 02:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • No I understand that. The issue is that different people can reasonably disagree with what is borderline notable. To use a deliberately extreme example, presumably a single person claiming non-notability of say John Hinkley wouldn't make him marginally notable. There needs to be some argument there about why one can reasonably see the person as not very notable. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision. This guy doesn't seem to be otherwise notable, and the article about the collision is fairly thorough, while the article about the person is weak. Note that it's now possible to redirect into the middle of an article, so if Waddle has a section in the article, Scott Waddle can be aimed there. --John Nagle (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scott_Waddle&oldid=1077427380"