Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elaine Herzberg

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 keep. Essentially, any renaming, redirecting, reapproprating to another article, or nuking the whole thing and starting again can be done without deleting the article, so it is outside of the scope of this debate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Herzberg[edit]

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

Per WP:ONEEVENT, this should really be redirected to the paragraph in Uber#Criticism under the Safety concerns, Pedestrian fatalities section or another similar section — IVORK Discuss 23:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although this event may also be mentioned in the Uber article as part of Uber's history, the topic here is not a criticism of Uber, it is a milestone in the history of autonomous vehicle usage and this person has become notable because of it. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to IVORK - there is no intention of the author to criticize nor even mention Uber ride share service. This article was to record the event of the first known pedestrian - possibly bicyclist - fatality due to an autonomously driving vehicle on public roadways. The original draft of the article had no such references, but they were added by other authors. Karmakinetic (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yet it was an event that involved Uber. So they should be mentioned. Wikipedia doesn't WP:CENSOR it's articles to go easy on particular companies, it merely reports facts. This is the same reason why we don't allow origional research to be done i.e. drawing your own conclusions based on the Google Maps image indicating there was a give way to cyclists spot. You can say "mediaorganizationX stated the incident could have occured due to X" but not come up with it youself. My origional reason for nominating is that the event is relevant to the liable party, and as such should be listed on their page (Uber#Criticism in the Pedestrian fatalities section). Elaine herself is only notable due to this, and doesn't require her own page due to that and that it isn't really as notable as the first ever pedestrian death from a motorvehicle. — IVORK Discuss 04:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Johnpacklambert - content appearing like "newspaper" can be deleted if you can point it out. Thanks. Karmakinetic (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The first fatality due to an autonomous vehicle might become notable if there is sufficient coverage, but the victim probably won't be notable. Either way, this is WP:TOOSOON. WP does not "record events", it summarizes other coverage. MB 04:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NB this isn't even the first fatality (see above). Widefox; talk 13:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Going along with this WP:OTHERSTUFF argument (one to avoid at AfD) - we don't have an article for the first person killed by an autonomous car (see above). Widefox; talk 13:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is already a significant amount of coverage of this topic, not only because of the Uber connection, but because of the autonomous vehicle safety debate. So per WP:GNG I think we already have sufficient notability here. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, could be covered in relevant articles instead. Brandmeistertalk 10:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Classic ONEEVENT, didn't even reach the level of BLP1 because in few years this man will be forgetton entirely in relation to this minor incident. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ONEEVENT. Don't even need to redirect to Uber. Natureium (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think reliance on WP:ONEEVENT is unsafe in this case because, due largely to the impact on the public acceptance of autonomous vehicles, the coverage of this event is escalating daily - you can see that by clicking o the "find sources" links at the top of this nomination. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONEEVENT is the consensus, and we go by consensus and try to avoid WP:RECENTISM and WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Until there's secondary sources to say the lasting impact, we cannot say right now. To illustrate, an OTHERSTUFF argument (ie weak) would be that ONEEVENT was cited as applicable in the merge of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Williams (robot fatality) (subsequently the 2 non-notable robot death articles and the Robot article have got messed up). Widefox; talk 14:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONEEVENT doesn't preclude this topic, it embraces it: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. Which is why I don't think we can rely on it as an argument to delete this article. You seem to be trying to invoke precedents too, by comparing this topic with maybe similar, but not directly comparible previous topics - and don't forget WP:IGNOREPRECEDENT. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not invoking precedents, which is why I flagged my own OTHERSTUFF as "weak". The day that someone crossing the road is an assertion of notability is when this place has problems. Widefox; talk 20:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please review the latest revision addressing your concerns. It is a biographical article about a former Arizona high school student who is notable for graduating and being a mother. Karmakinetic (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your description ^ has no assertion of notability, which is a speedy delete. Widefox; talk 13:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's been re-written; the assertion of notability is now in the first sentence.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the wording here "notable for graduating and being a mother" . !votes need to use policy/guideline based arguments, or risk being disregarded. Widefox; talk 13:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the first pedestrian killed by a robot. If it would be deleted, then it should at least redirect to a page dedicated to such accidents. MathieuMD (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete del per nom Wikipedia:ONEEVENT, we're WP:NOT a newspaper. WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources, only time will tell as this is TOOSOON, . Widefox; talk 13:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Autonomous_car#Uber. There is no need for a separate article at this point per WP:BIO1E.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I believe this will be of historical interest decades in the future. This is exactly the sort of article which should be preserved on Wikipedia! There's plenty of precedent: Bridget Driscoll, the first person killed by a car; Thomas Selfridge, first person to die in a plane crash; Kenji Urada, first person killed by a robot; Robert Rayford, first North American HIV/AIDS death; and I'm sure there are many others. These articles are grim but interesting historically. (It could be renamed to "death of..." - I don't care either way on that issue.) Adpete (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adpete That's the problem with WP:OTHERSTUFF (an argument to avoid at AfD) - e.g. Kenji Urada wasn't the first person to be killed by a robot, that was Robert Williams (robot fatality) and the AfD of that article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Williams (robot fatality) was closed Merge to Robot (but there's been intervening edits against that consensus which I've marked as such and aim to get both correctly merged back into Robot). Widefox; talk 14:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF strictly only applies to an argument relying only on the fact that other articles exist. What I should have done is drawn parallels to these other events, not their WP articles. That is, the deaths of these other people pass WP:GNG; e.g. there are numerous reliable (non-Wikipedia) articles on Bridget Driscoll's death, regardless of whether her death has a WP article. So it's likely (in my opinion, almost certain) that Herzberg's death will also be of historical interest for a long time. Adpete (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the first person killed by a robot was deemed not notable Merge Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Williams_(robot_fatality). It directly refutes that this is notable per that consensus (exactly the opposite of passing GNG). The other articles have other merits, so aren't obviously relevant for direct comparison. A landmark accident doesn't make a notable bio per ONEEVENT/BIO1E per consensus. Widefox; talk 11:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:ONEEVENT is clear that there can be ambiguity on whether individuals should be sufficiently notable for an article based on involvement in a single event, and suggests that the event, rather than the individual, may be where focus should fall. But the nature of this event (i.e. the singular subject is killed in a singular event) favours an article about the subject rather than the event, IMHO. And although we should be careful about rushing to have articles on every item that reaches the top of the news, I'm pretty sure that, in the future, this individual will continue to be notable as an unfortunate first victim of a new technology. --PLUMBAGO 09:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except they aren't even the first person to be killed by an autonomous car (or a robot) which also doesn't have an article. Additionally, the first person to be killed by a robot was deemed not notable per AfD (see above). Widefox; talk 14:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The arguments to delete based on notability of the victim are valid, but article has value for incident. Rename and refocus the article on the incident. This article will continue to grow in importance and size. You can see dozen different articles about the incident over several days on reddit page for self driving cars: https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/ Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The incident is not the first person to be killed by a) an autonomous car, a robot, a car. Their involvement was crossing the road. The involvement of the human "driver" is also not central to this, it's about the car, worthy of a mention for that car, and in the history of car evolution yes. Widefox; talk 14:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Argument ignores the point that the incident has had many different articles written about it, everyday since it occurred as viewable on the reddit topic page. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources do not count for notability (primary being close to the event, too soon to say if this person will have clear secondary sources later on), Reddit isn't an WP:RS, that's just WP:RECENTISM. That's on top of irrelevant per consensus ONEEVENT. Widefox; talk 11:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage is going way beyond simple reporting of the event. Many reliable sources are discussing the event (e.g. IEEE Spectrum, Forbes, New York Times, Bloomberg), which makes them secondary sources. There is no question this event is significant, the only question is whether it should have its own article or simply be mentioned in Autonomous car. To me it's pretty clear that there is so much discussion, and this is such a (sad) landmark, that there is too much to be buried in a paragraph in Autonomous car, and so it deserves its own article. WP:ONEEVENT is easily addressed by a rename to Death of Elaine Herzberg; nearly everyone agrees the significance is the event not the person. Adpete (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A move to an event title is a minimum for now, then redirect to autonomous car later seems appropriate, as there's actually little to say about the topic once recentism is avoided and until we know what the cause is. I concede there's analysis - at this point speculation of the cause, including distancing of the Uber system from the others. It's still too close to the event. (The saddest part is this type of road death is the sort of crash autonomous vehicles should be helping us avoid - lidar per IEEE Spectrum). Widefox; talk 13:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Accident with death of Elaine Herzberg. As far as I can see, it is the event and its consequences that is and will be of interest, more so than the unlucky person. --RainerBlome (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and make into an article about the highly notable event rather than the individual. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't even have an article on the first fatality due to an autonomous car. (see above for previous AfD "merge" for the first robot death - also not notable) . Widefox; talk 14:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is the first person killed was somewhat negligent. Tesla said you must maintain control and he ignored that and watched a movie. In this case the victim was not a willing participant to a mad companies scheme to quickly achieve driverless technology. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That highlights how there's an arbitrary aspect in the determination of superlatives in scientific or technological progress, let alone their usage. e.g. in these "first" articles we have: a steam car, electric car, petrol, gas, diesel, autonomous mode, fully autonomous. Coming back to this, it also had a supervising "driver", and I'm not sure it's good to speculate on responsibility of any accident before its legally determined. Widefox; talk 20:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but consider renaming Does not meet deletion criteria at WP:DEL-REASON but per WP:ONEEVENT this article would need to be about the event that generated significant secondary source information. However, do not rename if and when editors are able to find information about Elaine Herzberg herself; in that case, keep as a biographical article, even if it will be another stub. In that case, the discussion should focus on whether this article should include information regarding the event or if the event should be separate. WP:ONEEVENT regards "whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." Deletion is clearly off the table. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The notability comes from the autonomous car (and Uber), not the pedestrian that was unfortunately killed. What about WP:DEL-REASON 7. (PRIMARYNEWS = no secondary sources), 8. ONEEVENT, 14. WP:NOTNEWS ? Widefox; talk 11:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - OMG I can't believe the deletionists on this one! This is the first killing of an uninvolved human by a fully autonomous robot with the power to roam about at will in public, at high speeds, with several tons of potential weaponry at its disposal. We can only hope that there will not be thousands more; that this is not the first of a long and tragic trend. Demanding external references of notability before those references have had a chance to be established is premature. So are debates about the allocation of blame, though it should be noted that the pedestrian crossed an unobstructed lane and a half at walking pace and should have been visible to LIDAR that entire time. Please withhold deleting at least until a full investigation is complete and facts come forward. 72.208.150.248 (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An autopilot also fits that description, so no, not the first. Widefox; talk 23:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but consider renaming as per BrendonTheWizard, who correctly interprets WP:ONEEVENT. And I pray that this will remain one (or two) article(s), and not be the first entry in CAT:People killed by Autonomous Vehicles. --Eliyahu S Talk 07:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I feel your thoughts and the outcome are aligned somewhat with the coroners from Bridget Driscoll's case. The coroner, Percy Morrison, (Croydon division of Surrey) said he hoped "such a thing would never happen again." The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents estimate 550,000 people had been killed on UK roads by 2010. — IVORK Discuss 09:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just so. --Eliyahu S Talk 02:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lacking the added "pedestrian" in the category I am afraid it seems Joshua Brown (unnamed and buried in a paragraph) may have been the "first person killed by Autonomous Vehicles". The vehicle "just did not see" a big 18-wheeler trailer broad-side in the road and failed to stop. Otr500 (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Based on the arguments above for WP:ONEEVENT by BrendonTheWizard and Eliyahu S, this is clearly a notable event and is likely to result in changes to autonomous vehicle testing. The NTSB investigation is underway and I've rewritten/restructured the article so that it's more about the event than the person, and can be renamed to "Death caused by Uber autonomous car" or something like that. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not possible to know there will be long-term changes attributed to this today. That's entirely crystal ball at this point, and as notability is not temporary, that's not a good rational to keep as it's too soon. Widefox; talk 23:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rename: Please see amended rational below; 1)- The content is WP:CFORK being covered in more than one other article, 2)- This is a supposed BLP yet the article is actually about a woman being hit by an Uber autonomous Volvo XC90 so lacks notability. Does anyone actually see a biography here? 3)- This subject fails GNG and is being pushed because 4)- other stuff exists even though it is being admitted this is a poor rationale. Yes it is frowned upon to bring it up "but it is true" makes it alright, 5)- Hype is being presented that: "with the power to roam about at will in public", which while adding sensationalism is not accurate and melodramatic. This editor surely failed to read the article as it states, "operating in self-drive mode and with a human safety backup driver sitting in the driving seat.", so let's stretch it out that a rogue computer car went mad (the backup driver was asleep or incapacitated) or otherwise had an AI malfunction and went on a killing spree. Wait! that is no more of a "stretch" than the OR: "This is the first killing of an uninvolved human by a fully autonomous robot with the power to roam about at will in public, at high speeds, with several tons of potential weaponry at its disposal. We can only hope that there will not be thousands more; that this is not the first of a long and tragic trend.". The next part of the comment "Demanding external references of notability before those references have had a chance to be established is premature.", is covered by WP:Recentism, WP:TOOSOON, and probable WP:Crystal, 6)- The Wikipedia:ONEEVENT is covered in two other places and trying to cover it as a biography (definition: an account of someone's life written by someone else) but in this case is actually only a snapshot of a point where the rogue person killing car ended the subjects life and the circumstances surrounding the event.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment View stats for the page are below if anyone is interested. — IVORK Discuss 05:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we have a article on Bridget Driscoll the first person killed by a car 71.169.158.86 (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFF as to why this isn't a good argument at AfD. Widefox; talk 23:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This person is notable. Centibyte(talk) 16:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Please correct me if I am wrong: Of the previous two "keep !votes" the first is either a vandal (dif) or a vandal by hijacking. With no questions of concerns, just a revert, I think vandal. The second self-asked for a block around an hour after making this edit. Otr500 (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, note to closer should disregard all !votes that are incorrectly stated as a vote with no reasoning. Widefox; talk 23:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename - to First pedestrian killed by a self-driving car. This event was notable not just for being the first death of its kind, an occurrence that is the quintessential sign of Wikipedia notability, but this death also froze the self-driving car market, and the cascading tech selloff wiped out billions of tech market value, making the death even more notable. Interestingly, with the felony history of the driver, which I agree is irrelevant to the incident, this continues to have legs and will be litigated though the courts for years. Forbes' deputy editor of tech coverage wrote a piece about this.[[2]] Her quote:
There are tens of thousands of traffic fatalities every year in the U.S., and each is uniquely terrible. This one was historic. Herzberg was the first known pedestrian killed by an autonomous vehicle, a terrible irony as technology is being developed in hopes of bringing dramatic reductions in on-road fatalities.
My suggested generic title is more likely what will be searched for years from now, as we are doing now with the car crash and robot deaths, because the names will be unfamiliar. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but consider renaming Edit: I changed my vote to simply "keep" because of the continuing coverage on the person. I clicked through the sources and there seems to be plenty of ongoing coverage (this incident has been in the national news for over a week now) to indicate the incident itself is notable enough for inclusion. I think time will tell whether the victim ends up being notable. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to "Death of Elaine Herzberg". There are many reliable sources about the collision, however there is not much information in either the article or the sources about Herzberg as a person, other than the collision Pi (Talk to me!) 19:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename: The entire article is about the incident. There are perhaps only two sentences or so about Herzberg or about the biography of Herzberg. This "bio" (of sorts) is presented almost as an after-thought, really. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current consensus[edit]

There is a very clear consensus that the event of an autonomous car hitting and killing a pedestrian, while sad, does not rise to the level of meeting the notability standards of Wikipedia:Notability (people) specifically WP:BIO1E for a stand-alone pseudo-biography that mainly just deals with the event. The continues comments concerning other stuff, has long been determined to be a bad argument for "keep". There are two actual "keep" !votes and the rest (keep and keep but rename) advocate, in some way, for coverage just not at this title. Some of the "delete" !votes have also expressed a willingness to explore this and I agree because there is currently enough national coverage for sources that go beyond the accident concerning these vehicles.
A dilemma: The article autonomous car is already pretty big and covers more than "just cars" and "Autonomous vehicle" redirects to Vehicular automation so either change a redirect or create autonomous transportation. These are just ideas but a Google "car" was ticketed for failing to yield a pedestrian righ-of-way so there are current and on-going issues that can be covered. I think, instead of battling over "deleting" the information, relegating it to a paragraph, or some "keep" closing, that would be against current community standards, and result in more "battles", that editor collaboration could resolve the issue. Suggested titles like Death of Elaine Herzberg (obituary) and Accident with death of Elaine Herzberg (a differently worded obit) still revolves around an individual death and not the news reported autonomous (or self-driving) aspect that caused the death. The fall-out from this will be more regualations, permits cancelled or re-negotiated, and more over-sight (the NTSB is involved), as the family has already reportedly reached a settlement. It will not go away as the "big" money has a lot riding on this from a financial point of view.
Anyone interested in exploring alternatives over battling? We can attempt a discussion. Otr500 (talk)
@ Natureim: I am sure there "may be" because we are at the beginning of a very recent event that might have shined a light on some things. With all the big players like Audi, BMW, General Motors, Ford (through Argo AI), Lyft, Aptiv, Tesla, China’s Baidu, Toyota, Nissan, Volvo, Uber, Volkswagen, and Alphabet Inc.’s Waymo all "wanting to win the autonomous car rollout race", I am sure there will be many "future incidents. A brief look and I found so far: A YouTube from E for Electric analyzing the Herzberg video, and questioning what went wrong with the state-of-the-art navigation system. Waymo CEO made a statement: "We're very confident that our car could have handled that situation." Another YouTube shows a Tesla failed 3 times to identify and avoid an object. Reuters reported that in September 2017 GM's self-driving cars were involved in six accidents and 13 crashes in California in 2017. A spokeswoman for GM stated, "All our incidents this year were caused by the other vehicle". Waymo vehicles had three crashes in 2017. NOTE: California is the only state that requires reports on autonomous vehicle accidents and there have been 43 so far. Otr500 (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Wikipedia:Notability (people) is not met here, however I think that WP:EVENT is satisfied. Because the event is recent it's difficult to tell whether WP:LASTING is going to be satisfied however I would predict it will be. There is enough content in the article about different aspects of the event (which are reliably sourced) for me to be comfortable that WP:DEPTH is satisfied. If we are going to keep the article based on event notability then renaming makes sence Pi (Talk to me!) 19:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Pi: I agree (with you and many others) the event is notable. The tragedy involving Elaine Herzberg has certainly brought about national attention on the subject of autonomous cars and testing. I have found ample sources with many more to likely come. Look at the video above where Tesla failed 3 times to identify and avoid an object. It just did not see what was visible as it seems the case with the Uber and Herzberg. There are world-wide considerations such as The Netherlands, China and Switzerland have been testing electric driverless shuttles with capacities of up to nine people, as well as full-sized driverless buses. I had not heard anything concerning information on AV's from China. A consideration is if there should be a dedicated article on "just" the Uber and Herzberg incident or can this be part of an article that will be more than just a career start article? If there is enough collaboration consensus needs to decide this as well as a title because a pseudo-biography obituary is not the answer as can be plainly seen by the !votes. Otr500 (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ User talk:174.30.113.88: that is an option but at this time how many people would be on such a "list"? Otr500 (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There would be two entries on the list. This person, and the driver who died in a Tesla mentioned above (Joshua Brown). It's a bit limited to just list deaths, listing injuries as well would be a good idea. 86.186.68.10 (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly [3] as well. And presumably there will be more in the years to come. 174.30.113.88 (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it seems Walter Huang makes at least three but a plausable solution, other than a list in the possible event of... we should consider options either event specific or that can include relevant material of the event and possibly others. A list article is actually a "list" usually limiting content. To avoid confusion "event specific" would solve the misplaced biography issue with a name change.
The current issue is that with the present title, according to policies and guidelines, as well as the "deletes" and those deletes that include possible renaming and variations of "Keep but rename" (even merge means stand-alone status as named is questioned), lean towards renaming. To prevent confusion of "no consensus" (if head counts are used over policy and guideline criterion) exploring possible names is a good thing. I just don't think a list would satisfy concerns and reach a consensus. Otr500 (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reverted clear vandalism that included derogatory comments concerning the current subject of the article. Otr500 (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on change of !vote above to Rename: Bear in mind as listed this is currently a biography. The nominator, delete !votes that indicate renaming and the variations of "keep but rename {that is not actually a "keep", because this AFD is concerning the title and a rename would change the title) gives indication that a consensus has emerged to rename. Sources and policies and guidelines give evidence of an "event" over a "biography" (and being a biography is the result of the majority delete !votes) and editor comments, along with research of sources, has led me to consider the event as notable but possible more so if combined. To me, at this time, the number of editors weighing in advocating or suggesting the content is acceptable, just not at this title, and the amount of current sourcing indicates that there is also notability with the multitude of issues concerning self-driving/autonomous vehicles (cars) that make it "worthy of notice". Otr500 (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested names[edit]

Without listing all the suggestions one provided by @Natureium:: Incidents involving autonomous vehicles, has potential to offer substancial coverage of the current event while allowing other issues and events to be included and at the same time offer a solution to rename this away from a "one-event pseudo-biography obituary title" that is actually more about an Uber self-driving/autonomous vehicle (car) hitting a pedestrian (as evidenced by sources), the issues, and aftermath. Otr500 (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about creating Incidents involving autonomous vehicles as a category? I feel like that's what people are actually looking for when they're researching this type of thing, but I think an article would quickly become too long if all incidents were listed and detailed on a single page. I think it's better to keep the individual incidents separate, so they can be fully documented. I think articles like this should be renamed Accident with death of PERSON or something similar if that's the only thing notable about the person. If they're notable enough for their own entry, make the page PERSON and create a redirect to their page of Accident with death of PERSON, and list the redirect in the category. I don't think we should lump them all incidents together on one page when it's very likely there will soon be tons of them. Lonehexagon (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Alright! Ideas are always good. My issue with an opinion of anything to do with the article Uber is that it is not written "like" an advertisement to me it is an Uber advertisement. The accident, that just may not end up considered that at all, has brought the many other issues to national attention. There are very possibly dangerous problems with the software. The Uber article has a Criticism section with subsections on "Dynamic pricing", "Protests", "Travel ban, taxi strike, and related protests", etc..., but nothing on "the accident". There is a Safety concerns section with nothing on the navigation software issues. A "Lawsuits" subsection fails to consider that a lawsuit over 'the accident' was settled but family members have obtained council. This tragic "accident", of a self-driving car with state-of-the-art navigation, including lidar, radar, and various other sensors, failed to detect an object (bicycle) and a person, when that is the purpose of the system. This "accident" is placed in that article under a History section and relegated as a paragraph of the Self-driving car research (really!!) subsection. We can assume all the good faith possible but this "stinks like a dead chicken". I understand the want or need to attach a personal name somewhere. It makes it "personal". I am not against that but we have been covering an event and not a person. I am not against this being a totally renamed article removed as a biography. Having these self-driving incidents fragmented is why things end up buried in a paragraphy of a subsection.
I am against the issues and dangers of the entire subject of "issues concerning self-driving cars/vehicles being buried as acceptable losses. If culpability is found then there could be something along the line of the Schlitterbahn "accidental" killing of Caleb Thomas Schwab. A difference there is that he was the son of Kansas representative and the tragedy apparently (can't tell from the article) occured in Kansas. Look at the article, the Incidents section, and content. Here is a current headline: Kansas water park executives charged with murder in boy's death, and another; Schlitterbahn, former executive both facing charges in water slide incident that killed 10-year-old, and yet more, Verrückt designers, construction company indicted for murder in ..., Schlitterbahn co-owner jailed on charges of murder, aggravated battery and aggravated child endangerment with many more. due weight and NPOV dictates if there is coverage at all it should be covered completely. We update articles within seconds on many subjects so why not these?
I was a "delete" !vote but the evidence is clear, as is consensus, that the current title violates policies and guidelines, and that there are problems. Maybe these are buried by corporate greed, biased editing, or just that on these subjects there is a lack of interest, but there are problems and they have been effectively buried. Maybe it is time for an article dedicated to these issues. I just know that "if" we can't find consensus for an acceptable title by consensus, I am going to attempt to get an admin chosen title under #11 of the Admin guidelines on deleting pages and not settle for a pseudo-biography by some "no consensus" determination. This is why if covered seperately on Wikipedia it should be something along the lines of Uber accident with death of Elaine Herzberg, that would be backed by sources, and if you agree I would back that. As it stands now, with the billions of corporate dollars involved, all of these "accidents" will be relegated as a necessary evil and the "cost of advancement". I wonder what representative Schwab would think of that thought? Some of the family of Herzberg found an agreeable price. Otr500 (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know if the vote has ended, but there are several articles for the name of the first person killed in a motor accident, pedestrian killed by a car, etc... this one is not different at all, it has even more sources than the others. Hervegirod (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I changed my vote to Keep without renaming (above), as there now seems to be plenty of significant coverage about the person. Lonehexagon (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TNT. It's clear that we're going to keep this article, so I'm not going to waste my time arguing otherwise. But, it's a terrible article as currently written. First, there's nothing notable about this person other than she was unlucky enough to be hit by a car. The article isn't about her, it's about the event. So, it should definitely be renamed. Next, this is a hodgepodge of sound bites from unreliable sources, mixed with WP:OR. For example, we shouldn't be doing things like looking at Google Street View photos and reporting on what traffic signs traffic say. And the idea that we're taking Google Street View photos and annotating them based on sound bites just boggles the mind; copyvio and OR at the same time. Just because a normally reliable source publishes a sound bite, that doesn't mean it's a reliable fact on which to base an encyclopedia article. The NTSB is famous for going off to a quiet place and doing their job, then releasing a report once they've completed all their investigations. Until they do that, everything about the accident is just crap and fails WP:NOTNEWS. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2018 (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/Elaine_Herzberg&oldid=1023022605"