Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert K. Preston

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. NW (Talk) 17:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert K. Preston[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E concern. Suggest a footnote at White House intruders like Michael Winter. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I moved the article at 1974 White House helicopter incident -the focus of the article was the incident, not the person, so that it ought not being titled as a BLP. I think this can satisfy the BLP1E concerns. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, It has already been merged into 1974 White House helicopter incident, which itself is a notable event. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to White House intruders. I don't think we need individual articles on particular incidents like this, when everything can be covered in one main article and there's no lasting notability. Robofish (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with User:Cyclopia's bold merging in principle. But I find it absolutely farcical that someone who steals military hardware and flies within a whisker of the White House is not notable, yet two people who turn up to a party they're not invited to get an article each. People wonder why wikipedia is losing editors. This is why.WFCforLife (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't merge, I just renamed. About the difference of treatment, well, you're welcome to help adjusting the situation. This is the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" for a reason. Complaining won't go far. --Cyclopia ^talk 10:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean this in good faith. But are you suggesting that I merge the Salahis into the gatecrashing article? I can think of more entertaining ways to get myself banned. WFCforLife (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of them are notable enough for their own article (an expansion of the intruders article with details as to changes at the White House may be more prudent), but we have serious recentism issues here ("everyone is going to be looking here for it so let's keep it" is pretty standard reasoning at AFD now). I'd just follow what I did here and relist it for deletion when things calm down. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, one could try to restore this bad boy if they want to take the other "anything related to the White House is relevant" extreme. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to White House intruders. I've likewise advocated merging the articles for Michaele Salahi and Tareq Salahi into 2009 White House gatecrash incident. Robert K. Preston deserves a note, but a separate article violates WP:UNDUE. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but I don't believe this comment is accurately interpreting WP:UNDUE. Undue is a section of WP:NPOV, which requires articles be written from a "neutral point of view". The Undue section proscribes giving some particular argument or position, within an article, more than its share of the space within that article. I do not believe WP:NPOV advocates elimination of whole topics. If we allowed contributors to suppress whole articles, based on some kind of interpretation of UNDUE, we would be opening the door to the proponents and critics of holistic and conventional medicine mounting challenges based on that interpretation of UNDUE to articles from the opposite POV. Do we want proponents of conventional medicine to claim UNDUE authorizes them to delete whole articles on aspects of homeopathy, or chiropractory, or iridology, because they consider those fringe topics? Doing so would open conventional medicine to a tit for tat retaliation, with holistic medicine advocates arguing that UNDUE authorized enforcing a merger of, for instance, the articles on X-rays, CAT scans, Nuclear magnetic resonance and ultrasound -- because it gives "undue weight" for each of those techniques to have a whole article of its own. Personally, I think much of holistic medicine is nonsense, but, so long as those working on those articles can make their contributions using WP:RS, while complying with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER, I support allowing those articles to grow as long as necessary. I do not believe our goal should be to suppress "bad topics". That is entirely too subjective. I believe that all topics, for which we have good WP:RS, can be covered in a manner that complies with all our policies. So, rather, our goal should be to remove or improve material that doesn't comply with our policies. This article does comply with our policies. And, it seems to me, the WP:UNDUE argument is entirely misplaced. Geo Swan (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FX (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- WRT the suggestion that this article be merged with "White House intruders" -- could those who advocate this make a greater effort to explain how this would be an improvement? The article has been renamed to the incident, so calls upon the biographies of living persons policy, or the coatrack essay are no longer relevant. I looked at "White House intruders", it includes zero details on any of the incidents or individuals it lists. So, those arguing for a merge are either all the details in this article be discarded, or they are arguing that "White House intruders" should contain a bare list, where one entry is populated by details, and the rest aren't. In the first instance, why throw away the information about the incident, or in the second instance, why not keep the list an easily navigated list, with no details, and place all the details where they belong, in the articles about the alleged perpetrators and/or incidents? Geo Swan (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geo Swan (I noticed I didn't !vote yet). I completely agree that the merge suggestion is a disaster, it would annihilate the content of the article without any good reason. The subject is notable ([1], [2]) and BLP1E does not apply anymore due to the move. The article needs help and sourcing for sure, but policy requires us not to delete for reasons that can be dealt with editing. --Cyclopia ^talk 20:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WRT blp1e -- I suggest that the most useful way to interpret blp1e is that it should be a guard against covering trivial, ephemeral material -- material that turns out to be forgotten a week after the event. But, for single events for which there is some kind of twist, which continue to generate references in the popular or scholarly press, for months or years afterwards? I suggest it would be most useful to exempt those events from blp1e. When commentators keep writing about events months or years afterwards we should count on at least some of our readers turning to their most trusted source, the wikipedia, and looking up that incident, or the individual(s) involved. Removing well referenced and neutral material that serious readers will later want to read, due to an overly literal reading of blp1e is a serious disservice. Geo Swan (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unvoiced assumption -- I suggest there is an unvoiced assumption in the "merge" arguments -- namely that the only possible topid anyone would ever consider would be an appropriate target to merge this into is "White House intruders". I placed additional references on the article. One of those additional articles ended with the passage: "Sewell, who had chased the helicopter in an erratic, stunt-filled flight through several Maryland suburbs and the the capital city, said he thought the runaway pilot intended to "end it all" by crashing into the White House." So, the incident would be of interest to those intending to look at all incidents where a plane was stolen, or hijacked, and posed a security risk. Alternately, the incident would be of interest to those looking for incidents that could have served as examples or inspiration for hijackers like the 9-11 hijackers. In my opinion over-hasty merge enthusiasts do a disservice to our readers by trying to out-anticipate what they should be interested in. I suggest that when someone suggests merging an article into a related article, but there are other possible merge targets, it is best not to merge that article after all. Rather we should merely make sure that all the articles are wikilinked to one another, with enough context readers can navigate the path that best leads them to the particular information they need. Geo Swan (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points. FX (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as 1974 White House helicopter incident per Wikipedia:Notability (events). Good work to the editors who have properly renamed the article and expanded its content. Location (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as 1974 White House helicopter incident per Wikipedia:Notability (events).Per Swan - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:23, 4 December 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.