Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balloon boy hoax (2nd nomination)

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 speedy keep. Nominator has agreed that it should be kept, and no other users have advocated deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Balloon boy hoax[edit]

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

This article does not seem to meet notability requirements laid out in WP:EVENT, especially WP:EFFECT. "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation." Ragettho (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - This article needs work but it's well-sourced by verifiable, reliable secondary sources, and more than satisfies WP:GNG. The policy the nominator cites, WP:EVENTS, also states events that are "very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards" are usually considered notable, and this event qualifies. — Hun ter Ka hn 17:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The event is surely notable because not only was the hoax covered and revealed internationally, but the following court case, and criticism of media coverage is even discussed and sourced in the current article, which fulfills WP:EFFECT:

...the incident "was a wake-up call to the media but it's a wake-up call that every single one of us is going to sleep through.
Thompson blamed technology rather than the media for the problem: "There are two technological phenomena driving this -- one is television satellite trucks and the ability to broadcast from anywhere and two is an unlimited number of platforms to place this stuff."

While we're at it, let's take a look at WP:EVENT (emphasis not added):

Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards

The event easily fulfills WP:GNG (with international attention from CNN, The Daily Telegraph (UK), The New Zealand Herald, The Glode and Mail (Canada), and The Age (Australia), among others. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article moved since its first AfD. The first AfD can be found here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 18:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Hunter Kahn and I Jethrobot: I think the key words to consider here are "especially if also re-analyzed afterwards". Most, if not all, of the article's sources were published in 2009. More importantly, the "Internet and media attention" and "Criticism of media coverage" sections do not cite case studies or similar works that imply continuing coverage. See WP:PERSISTENCE. Ragettho (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then here are more reliable sources covering the recent auction of the silver saucer, all 2011:

1, 2, 3

And here's one that discusses the hoax as an example of a trend that cannot be ignored by media from 2011:

1

And here's one on how the father begins his jail sentence in 2010:

1

There's more, but I don't think it is necessary to bring this AfD to an end. The coverage is persistent. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of persistent coverage requires reliable sources. The Daily Maverick is ineligible in this case because "editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." (WP:NEWSORG) Ragettho (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to point out that notability is not temporary. If it was notable in 2009, it's still notable. — Hun ter Ka hn 20:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The participants in the 2009 debate were unable to reach a consensus on whether the event is notable. Ragettho (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: To this day still notable and well sourced at that. -OberRanks (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that WP:EFFECT is only 1 of the 5 total factors that WP:EVENT recommends considering. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you believe it fails to satisfy any of the other factors? — Hun ter Ka hn 14:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - whilst the article is quite badly done, the event was notable. It received coverage all over the world and the article has lots of reliable sources. Coolug (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:N, "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion." Ragettho (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as being curt with you. Regardless of the amount of news coverage (which isn't always an accurate indicator of notability), I think that the balloon boy hoax has had no meaningful or significant impact on any aspect of our culture. Ragettho (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect intended, but the fact that you don't "think" it had a meaningful impact sounds is a subjective opinion and sounds a bit like Wikipedia:I just don't like it. The threshold for notability isn't whether it had a "meaningful or significant impact" on culture. It's outlined under WP:GNG: significant coverage in reliable, verifiable, secondary sources. Besides, the fact that this is still being talked about today (see here) seems indicative that there was an impact. This recent story from an Australian newspaper even cites it while discussing the dangerous extent people will go to become reality TV stars, which means the Balloon boy hoax is emblematic of something much bigger. — Hun ter Ka hn 18:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the event and its sequelae were in the news for over 18 months, negating ONEEVENT. Since there are already copious reliable sources in the article, the burden of proof for deletion is on the nominator, and the nom's arguments come nowhere near to proving it must be deleted. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This hoax is a notable event. In addition to the coverage at time of the incident, we have continued interest and coverage of it. [1], and [2] are just two examples which demonstrate continued interest and lasting impact. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I now see that there are sufficient reliable sources that point to the lasting impact of this event. TBH although I initially had some misgivings about the merits of this nomination, I'm still quite surprised by the overwhelming support for keeping the article, given that the participants of the previous debate could not reach a consensus. I had no idea that consensus could change so drastically! In any case, apologies for wasting your time. Ragettho (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: This is not just routine news coverage. Routine news coveage is forgotten in a week, whereas this was covered for 18 months. If the article in The Australian is to be believed, people are still talking about it today. This has follow-up, which WP:ONEEVENT events lack. Guideline & Policy Wonk (talk) 23:03, 31 July 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.