Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Tobey

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 delete. There is a clear consensus to delete. BigDom 14:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Tobey[edit]

Aaron Tobey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like a clear WP:BLP1E to me. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Seems non-notable even when renamed --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • concur, Elen of the Roads, therefore am changing the title of the article to "Aaron Tobey Richmond Airport 4th Amendment Naked Protest" so its notable content describes a nationally (and possibly internationally) significant event rather than being a BLP. Certainly the protester's name is being widely listed outside Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandelver (talk • contribs)
  • Please note - renaming the article during an AfD should not have been done, also it will not prevent the AfD for running for seven days. Please do not move the article again. Please discuss notability here. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, you are totally wrong there. Read the instructions on WP:AFD: "While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, and can make the discussion difficult to track." --this change at the beginning of the discussion neither confuses the discussion, nor preempts any possible closing decision, nor makes the item hard to track. We frequently make name changes at AfD when it clear that the situation or the article would be clarified by one. (e.g. from John Smith to Murder of John Smith) You're an arb, so your opinion carries extra weight especially when BLP is concerned, and you should therefore be more careful about the way you cite policy. DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly the AfD should run for seven days or according to accumulated input from users who post to it, as should all AfDs. Which is why related discussions have been made sure to be included here. The initial titling of the article should not have been done. Thank you for the note on procedural conventions, Elen of the Roads. - Pandelver (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is still a BLP about a person who is not notable; name change doesn't change this fact. SMP0328. (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Living people are described in the course of all human events included in Wikipedia articles; the article is not fundamentally a BLP, and the short details describing the protestor's general role in society is not complete enough to warrant being considered a biography; just as it might be said US Deputy Secretary of State "James Steinberg is the son of a jeweler" (New York Times article) and his academic degrees, positions, home town and current location are commonly cited incidentally in all kinds of literature.

    This article is a notable protest event and national phenomenonological history including on-going consequent actions of national attention in national news beyond the citations used within the article, and much of its content to date was written with attention to this editorial perspective after the name change was made early in the content placement timeline of the article when it was realized that the initial title was incorrectly named.

    However, here's another option, which you can use as comprehensively or partially as you like: from your own POV, you might delete personal references of particular names of people involved if you find that leaves the protest event and legal, social, communications, body art, and other aspects clearer in bas relief.

    You are also invited to propose better article title emendations in light of its focus on the protest; the current title is rather long though accurate while capturing the key features which are sought in Wikipedia article ordinary search by typing into the article title box at the top of Wikipedia pages. Pandelver (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • SMP0328., I view Wikipedia as an active collaboration, and after all, despite the terms 'users' and 'editors' used for what we do in common parlance, after all we are in fact rather much writers, avoiding copyright rote duplication of extant published items, and being careful to cite sources for all we write and rewrite and revise in each other's writings. So I quite sincerely invite you again to collaborate on a larger article which you may consider not only notable in the instance of a particular event, but in the context of a series of events, a movement, or a set of legal issues. The article can certainly, and I expect will, with other writer/editors over time, treat not only legality but perhaps more importantly the sociology and also communications phenomenology which are notable in whatever topics you and I and others in the chain compilation precedents of the best of Wikipedia can produce. Writer/editor users in each of these and probably other fields would likely end up contributing over the lifetime of such a larger-scope article. Your judgment in defining its initial or prospective scope would be valuable. If you are punctilious about the contents, all the better for Wikipedians, writers and readers and users of its content, keeping the article, or portions of it to which you attend, to a high standard of veracity, neutral position, and worthiness in some of the criteria of the several fields of knowledge to which it may speak. I am thus more eager to hear how you would like to expand material, especially items you consider (whatever others may opine) as smaller nuggets of larger topics. Please do tell, as is asked earlier below, and further asked with respectful collegiality here, what you feel makes a good article on this topic, not the individual, and how you would like to collaborate. Since this may be your greater contribution in these regards. With warmest fellowship, particularly on St. Patrick's Day, regardless of religious, mythological or humanistic stances, Pandelver (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there a better, more comprehensive extant article on this topic, SMP0328., or would you like to write one in which this article would be included as a case, as there are other similar protests, though perhaps few enough for you to survey in a categorical topic of its own? Which other airport/ dermographic/ civil rights/ Fourth Amendment/ or particularly TSA policy cases would you have in mind? Pandelver : Discussion  Pandelver (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Add Japan Radiation Detected at O'Hare Airport Chicago customs" to potential expanded article or additional article to which this one will be linked at the detail on one of the say dozen most notable cases? There's great material in this article today, breaking 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and Fukushima I nuclear accidents news to be included if the Aaron Tobey event article becomes expanded, or is kept as a separate article but linked to a new broader topical article on US airport passenger search and scanning regulations and practice and public responses:
text from other articles

Add Japan Radiation Detected at O'Hare Airport Chicago customs" to potential expanded article Japan radiation sets off O'Hare airport alarms -- CBS News Chicago station reports trace amounts of radiation clinging to flights from country ravaged by earthquake, tsunami: :"Trace amounts of radiation from Japan have been detected in Chicago, CBS News station WBBM-TV reports. Travelers coming in from Japan on Wednesday triggered radiation detectors at O'Hare International Airport as they passed through customs. Only very small amounts of radiation were detected. Feds move more radiation monitors to West Coast U.S. nuke chief: I hope my info on Japan is wrong Panic, confusion over Japan plant evacuation "We are aware of the radiation," said Chicago Aviation Department spokeswoman Karen Pride. "We are adding screenings and precautionary measures."

In one instance, radiation was detected in a plane's air filtration system. Radiation was also found in luggage and on passengers on flights from Japan.

Mayor Richard M. Daley and other city officials wouldn't provide any additional details, saying federal authorities were handling the situation.

"Of course the protection of the person coming off the plane is important in regards to any radiation and especially within their families," Daley said at an unrelated event.

The mayor said the city has no local policy when it comes to detecting radiation at the airports.

"That would be up to the federal government. Every city can't have a policy. One says yes, one says no, you can't do that. You have to have a federal policy dealing with anyone entering the country in regards to the situations like that," Daley said. "And they handle it very professionally and it will be up to Homeland Security. We've been working with them. They have the primary responsibility."" [and then the article continues] - Pandelver (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete clearly not even a notable single event. MilborneOne (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. OlYellerTalktome 21:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Plainly not notable --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just a news story. If desired, a few sentences at Richmond International Airport or somewhere would be OK I suppose. Herostratus (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:ONEEVENT/WP:NOTNEWS. Also, the fact that the title is "Aaron Tobey Richmond Airport 4th Amendment Naked Protest" makes me think that this event is so insignificant (note, bizarre does not signify notability) that no one has bothered to give it a proper title yet. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major news coverage, involvement major long standing issue, no BLP concerns because he most certainly was not trying to be private. I see the objections as "i don't think it should be notable". DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My reasoning takes a slightly different route to that presented by Elen of the Roads, with whom I nevertheless do not disagree. I would say that the 'event' (I would have characterized it as a 'stunt') wasn't notable at all given that no legal precedent has been established as a consequence. Ergo, not even WP:BLP1E, but rather WP:NRVE for promotional activity, WP:NTEMP for the relevant activities being entirely temporary, and WP:SPIP for self-promotion, given that a person's name, not an issue category, is the title of the article. Finally, there is the matter of WP:ADVOCACY, with the entire article giving a disproportionate prominence to an inconsequential activity or set of activities when editors and contributors are specifically enjoined to consider 'proportionate representation of the state of human knowledge', particularly since 'Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations campaigns, even for worthy causes'.

    The activities that are the subject of the article could be characterized as political activism, but are not presented as such; the article is named after a single individual, not after a category of activism. Moreover, the article does not mention an outcome, such as a legal precedent, so the activity described has no status beyond being a stunt to draw attention to an individual (self-promotion) or a favoured interpretation of the law (advocacy). That a law suit or series of them have followed is a matter of routine, not notability. As such, the activities described have no bearing even on legitimate Wikipedia articles about categories of law.

    In terms of self-promotion, I see no reason why the particular individual whose name is included in the title, should be given any coverage in Wikipedia. A single act of defiance is not notability, otherwise anyone who ever defied the law anywhere in the world would be entitled to a personal entry; that's plainly ludicrous.

    Without wishing to impugn the motivations or unnecessarily probe the identity of the article's originator, I must nevertheless pose the question: how far removed from any pecuniary or personal interest in this matter is the originator? This goes to self-promotion.

    When I say 'pecuniary', I mean particularly in terms of the legal outcome of cited law suits, and therefore fees, charges, settlements or possible damages awards. The question must be asked because the article itself might be seen as an attempt to influence the outcome(s) of what appear to be ongoing law suits. Wikipedia cannot be drawn into legal controversy on anyone's behalf.

    When I say 'personal' I mean family or relationship ties to the named individual, association with any relative or organisation representing that individual, involvement in any contest, paid promotional activity, or private prank (standing to gain, for example, from 'bragging rights': 'most outrageous article on Wikipedia ...' or 'made Aaron cringe ...', etc). This is a difficult topic since anonymity seems to be a byword at Wikimedia. However, assurances or even some forms of proof can be offered privately (by email, for example), and might go some way towards removing doubt about this series of questions.

    Finally, a note on the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not a social forum, it is not a vehicle for interesting discussions or preoccupations. It is not subject to individual whim and sentiment. It is not a news outlet. It is an encyclopaedia. It deals with knowledge, of which certain events and individuals form a part, but only as they relate directly and significantly to a branch of human knowledge. Personal wishes on what should constitute notability are not considerations that can or should alter the meaning of that mission. The article in question refers to a name and incident(s) that have no significant impact on any branch of human knowledge, with the exception, perhaps, of 'pranksterism'. It is an article mentioning trivia that may be considered newsworthy by news media on the basis of a temporary controversy, but that does not make it worthy of an entry in Wikipedia. The encyclopaedic mission is not subject to consensus or democracy, otherwise the People's Republic of China, by the sheer weight of numbers it could bring to a vote, could censor every article, alter any topic, and subject the entire Wikipedia to party doctrine. That would then be the end of this grand endeavour. So let's be sensible about what we are here to do, and let's not engage in contrarian behaviour for the sake of it.

    It is for all of these reasons that I politely but firmly reject the arguments so far presented here by Pandelver and some others in support of keeping or expanding the article, even under another name.

    Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  04:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter S Strempel asks: "how far removed from any pecuniary or personal interest in this matter is the originator? [presumably of the article, not of the act of the protestor or the designing of that act or succeeding acts]"

    Answer: entirely removed. no pecuniary or personal interest. Do not even express any opinions concerning: (beyond Wikipedia) validity in law, philosophy, policy, or assessment of airport security fact of the protestor, the news media, or any critics; whether the protest is admirable, damnable, or interpretable in any other way; TSA, US, community, technical, or international policies regarding the issue of passenger search. So neutral POV not only in the text of the article, but regarding the article, assessing only notability of the phenomenon, particularly by virtue of: sociology, law, culture, media (not just news reports, the layers of the media involved, from dermographics to the use of media, including the intent and subsequent public media expressions and uptake of the protestor, generational history (significant here, but not opined as good, bad, long-term random or stochastic).

    Note that in the "text from other articles" is suggested a first major potential contrary view to the apparent view of the protestor: that the safety issues which prompted the form of current passenger search policy adopted in the US outweigh the claims of this protestor. Without comment on either's relative persuasiveness in its advocacy. A good treatment of the topic would disinterestedly survey all significantly relevant opposing and complementary views and aspects of a social phenomenon.

    Other aspects which we might examine in the event (not in Wikipedia editors discussion it), especially as you raise the question of promotion by the subjects, include among others the promotion achieved by the Rutherford people, the counterweight attention on the various airport authorities which their publicists as well as core policy strategic planners (not for purposes of promotion, but as policy) could use, because of public attention, in asserting the prudence of their procedures; the unincluded input of pilots (such as the one who delayed a recent flight to allow a grandfather to get through to the plane after arriving 2 hours (beyond recommendation) early but got stuck in line while on his way to see his grandchild a last time before the grandchild's life support was turned off -- in that case the grandfather was a Northrup Grumman employee who desperately sought help with the line from various agencies at the airport, so self-promotion of employment affiliation (not considered flagrant) was part of his appeal for help in speed or delay, and he was not told until he got to the gate that the pilot had taken matters into hand); of mechanics, security staff whose lives are also risked in close encounters with passengers who have/ have not been searched in various ways.

    Thanks to Peter S Strempel for raising an important editorial issue. I trust all our colleagues discussion this article and any related to it will sustain pursuit of neutrality in their work as well. One thing that's important, as articles on events at Wikipedia are fundamentally choices in phenomenology, is to include in their discussion the multiple POVs of users in the particular span of fields involved, such as, in this case, from legalists to visualists to moralists to political observers to engineers, semioticians, social investigators, anthropologists, the concerns of at least, so far, Japanese and Americans. - Pandelver (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter S Strempel continues:

    When I say 'pecuniary', I mean particularly in terms of the legal outcome of cited law suits, and therefore fees, charges, settlements or possible damages awards. The question must be asked because the article itself might be seen as an attempt to influence the outcome(s) of what appear to be ongoing law suits. Wikipedia cannot be drawn into legal controversy on anyone's behalf.

    When I say 'personal' I mean family or relationship ties to the named individual, association with any relative or organisation representing that individual, involvement in any contest, paid promotional activity, or private prank (standing to gain, for example, from 'bragging rights': 'most outrageous article on Wikipedia ...' or 'made Aaron cringe ...', etc). This is a difficult topic since anonymity seems to be a byword at Wikimedia. However, assurances or even some forms of proof can be offered privately (by email, for example), and might go some way towards removing doubt about this series of questions.

    Finally, a note on the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not a social forum, it is not a vehicle for interesting discussions or preoccupations. It is not subject to individual whim and sentiment.

    Wikipedia is not in its denotative articles a social forum, though social fora are often themselves the topics of Wikipedia articles, as the names of WikiProject task forces themselves attest regarding social fora topics. Many Wikipedia articles discuss a great deal of connotative, contextual, and interdisciplinary aspects of their topics. Which reminds us that 'discuss' is a verb for what even one author does in the course of statements with herself, not only in multiperson dialogue with other authors and with readers.

    Wikipedia IS a vehicle not for discussing (as in a forum) but (choose your preferred verb) reporting/ noting/ publishing/ describing/ examining/ relaying/ paraphrase reprinting interesting subjects, and as a general encyclopedia, it might be said of all kinds.

    Wikipedia, as its discussion pages show at very first glance, and much which is vetted and revetted in articles including their existence and winking in and out over very long time periods (think 100 years, not a month) like the choice of what's included in previous encyclopedias, is rather highly subject to individual whim and sentiment.

    That the negation of some of these practices is a highly valuable ideal, among many competing ideals in a popular encyclopedia popularly edited is also true. We are, of course, in our current historical period, different regarding opinion from works such as Britannica, particularly critically acclaimed for its 1911 edition in which the opinionated, notably well-written abundance of articles by named individual authors who were prized or famed at the time or subsequently is part of a more self-conscious encyclopedia editorial tradition in England and in that publishing house which even in etymology recognizes several layers of the nature of opinion, particularly about facts. - Pandelver (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter S Strempel says: It is not a news outlet. It is an encyclopaedia. It deals with knowledge, of which certain events and individuals form a part, but only as they relate directly and significantly to a branch of human knowledge.

    Wikipedia is a pan-historical news selection engine. In articles on events (like yesterday's FR-UK-US war on Libya), newly discovered species, recently deceased biographies, and other categories, there are even templated notices used to alert readers to the fact that the quick stream of on-going news is affecting content in the Wikipedia article, in some cases on a minute to minute basis. Of course, all knowledge relates to branches of human knowledge, more significantly than others. Current and live perception is part of the memory and cognition package which is human knowledge. We may be in this pan-historical sense one of the superlative news conveyors, outlet if you like, not ultimately a free for all if sometimes apparently one along the way, but inclusive of the latest verifiable discovery as well as many many claims of discovery (especially when we report them as such) on presumed prior knowledge, such as archaeological digs and theories on the origin of the universe. - Pandelver (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter S Strempel says: Personal wishes on what should constitute notability are not considerations that can or should alter the meaning of that mission. The article in question refers to a name and incident(s) that have no significant impact on any branch of human knowledge, with the exception, perhaps, of 'pranksterism'. It is an article mentioning trivia that may be considered newsworthy by news media on the basis of a temporary controversy, but that does not make it worthy of an entry in Wikipedia. The encyclopaedic mission is not subject to consensus or democracy, otherwise the People's Republic of China, by the sheer weight of numbers it could bring to a vote, could censor every article, alter any topic, and subject the entire Wikipedia to party doctrine. That would then be the end of this grand endeavour.

    What a wonderful statistical observation on the People's Republic of China, in several ways, including the implication that one place in which its citizens might participate in world reportage alongside the Great Firewall would be to all register as Wikipedia user-editors, Peter S Strempel!

    Is voting, while taking account of statements/ arguments/ judgment not what we do in parts of Wikipedia such as here in AfD, most users imprimateuring the discussion with a verdict such as Keep, Merge, Delete or in other fora Yes, No, Unsure? Have there not been some strenuous and valuable discussions of censorship, official, effective, or user cross-deletion here at Wikipedia in the last few years? Are our articles not constantly altered according to the literary and subject-related meta-doctrines of each editor? Is consensus not cited within Wikipedia policies and guidelines as one of the criteria for decision? - Pandelver (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter S Strempel says: So let's be sensible about what we are here to do, and let's not engage in contrarian behaviour for the sake of it.

    It is for all of these reasons that I politely but firmly reject the arguments so far presented here by Pandelver and some others in support of keeping or expanding the article, even under another name.

    An excellent post, thank you for raising so many cogent questions for us all, Peter S Strempel! - Pandelver (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Run-of-the-mill non-event, this is what WP:NOTNEWS or even the dreaded WP:BLP1E are designed to prevent; crap that causes a minor stir in the news for a short time, then fades to obscurity. Tarc (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not the newspaper. Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as much as I deeply value the fourth amendment I don't think that Mr. Tobey (or his recent libertarian-striptease performance) is quite notable enough for an article. No prejudice towards recreation if he does something to rescue himself from the dreaded BLP1E category. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP1E, and a pretty minor event at that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment & continuing keep I was asked at my talk page to change my !vote, but, looking at the discussion, my opinion remains that this is a significant event and well documented. We have sometimes applied oneevent in a way that makes us look ridiculous, this is one of them. It was intended to keep out the sort of purely local or momentary trivia that gets reported anyway, and material about people who happen to be victims of crimes or accidents.I do wish Pandelver had given a somewhat less elaborate defense--in my experience such defenses going make to general principles of public policy and equity and potential worldwide influence tend not to be helpful. We are only Wikipedia. And therefore Strempel's arguments about monetary gain from the article being here seem very farfetched--it is this sort of attack on an article from speculative grounds that looks excessive and tends not be be very helpful either. . DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just to make sure it is noted when this is closed...closing admin, do not count "continuing keep" as another vote, as this person has already weighed in with a keep earlier. Tarc (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep/renamed as event BLP1E/ONEEVENT are not by themselves (as the nominator nods to) reasons to delete. With respect to WP:EVENT,
    Lasting Effects? I give this a firm maybe, depending on what happens with the lawsuit. Not clearly "yes", not clearly "no."
    Depth of coverage? A little non-news coverage, not much: [1]
    Lasting Coverage? as per Lasting Effects.
    Diversity of Coverage is weak but not entirely single-threaded. (There's a lot of the AP report, but a few sources are independent.)
...none of which is pushing me hard in either direction. This strikes me as borderline. In judging borderline cases, I look to balance two factors: the potential harm done by keeping the article vs. the potential for the subject of the article to further demonstrate notability through lasting coverage and/or effect. As I see no verifiability or privacy issues in play, and as I see the lawsuit as a plausible potential catalyst for the demonstration of greater notability. Thus, weak keep. --joe deckertalk to me 17:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- textbook one-event nonsense. Wikipedia is not a tabloid news service. Reyk YO! 07:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete total non-event (dude searched at airport, charges dropped, didn't even miss his flight). Fails WP:N, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E. I suppose if this ever becomes a catalyst for major legal reform or something, we can always revisit the issue, but that seems pretty unlikely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:15, 21 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aaron_Tobey&oldid=1144711883"