Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stockton Rush

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 per WP:SNOW, without prejudice against a future nomination when things aren't quite so fresh. – bradv 00:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stockton Rush[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS T v x1 22:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - the subject of this article clearly doesn't meet points 2 and 3 of WP:BLP1E, especially point 3. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 23:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, he does very much meet point 2. And with regards to point 3, I will contest that it weren’t his actions during the expedition that caused the mishap, so he’s not independently notable for it. Basically he was just one of the occupants, his role in the loss of Titan wasn’t substantial. Carbon case of what this policy was written for.T v x1 23:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Definitely a notable businessman prior to the wreck, with full length sources from months and years ago: [1], [2], [3]Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Not true. If he had been a notable businessman prior to his death, he would have already have had an article. There’s nothing spectacular about his business activities.T v x1 23:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is now the central character in a major international news story. People will remember this incident and the person responsible for years to come. I'd say his backstory, which had many elements that led up to the implosion of the Titan, is relevant for historical purposes. 96.241.148.20 (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)— 96.241.148.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The central character in ONE EVENT! People like him is exactly what Wikipedia:BLP1E was written for. Nothing in your comment justifies his article.T v x1 23:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That argument doesn't work. BLP1E isn't satisfied because the third criterion states it has to be insignificant, whereas this was significant. 2A00:23C6:B894:FA01:815C:3D36:1E41:964D (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)— 2A00:23C6:B894:FA01:815C:3D36:1E41:964D (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No his role in the incident has to have been substantial, which is not the case. There is nothing that suggests that his piloting of the vessel caused the breakup. His role in the accident isn’t in any way more important than that of the other four occupants.T v x1 23:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His piloting of the vessel doesn't need to be the cause of the sub breaking up in order for his role to be substantial - that's a subjective interpretation of what is meant by 'substantial'. And clearly his role is more important than the other four occupants - this incident revolves entirely around a sub that he and those working for him designed and built. He himself dismissed concerns about the safety of the design, and then he himself was piloting it. The incident doesn't even happen without his involvement, so his involement is objectively substantial. 176.254.143.249 (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)— 176.254.143.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It's a big personal conjecture on you part to state it would not have happened without him. The expedition was executed by a company, not a person. They could have done that with another CEO as well. Also there is confirmation that design errors by him caused this, your are making wild assumptions here. There's nothing here about that incident that wasn't already included elsewhere. This is largely a content fork.T v x1 23:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, he wasn’t the pilot. Second of all, he’s the CEO of the company and had final say in the design decisions of the sub, which ultimately led to a lack of proper engineering and safety standards that led to the implosion. 42.3.105.87 (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)— 42.3.105.87 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

We don't know that yet. There has not been any confirmation that the break-up was the result of design flaws. And even if so, there were multiple engineers working for the company who all could be responsible.T v x1 23:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From BLP1E: 'John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.' This article clearly meets those conditions and there is a precedent. 176.254.143.249 (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)— 176.254.143.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No it doesn't. These case are not comparable. That assassination attempt was completely orchestrated and executed by Hinckley. It wouldn't have happened without him. In this case, there's nothing to suggest that the accident was caused by Rush's piloting. His role in the cause wasn't substantial at all. He was just as much an occupant and victim as the other four. T v x1 23:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His piloting of the vessel doesn't need to be the cause of the sub breaking up in order for his role to be substantial. The Reagan assassination does not happen without Hinckley and the Titan incident does now happen without Rush. 176.254.143.249 (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)— 176.254.143.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That analogy is just not true. He wasn't needed at all for that submersible to be operated. T v x1 23:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Definitely notable for more than one event, there are a lot of sources ranging from years ago to now easily found online. Icehax (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then why was no one interested in writing an article for him prior to his death? T v x1 23:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was then; this is now. Though deceased, he is an internationally recognized figure following this news story that made headlines around the world. 96.241.148.20 (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)— 96.241.148.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

ONE news story. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia’s policies before taking part in a procedure like AFD. T v x1 23:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. As per above. Death Editor 2 (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of which are valid arguments, so neither is yours.T v x1 23:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, you are wrong in this case. Death Editor 2 (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are. Please read the sites content policies. Anything worth mentioning about this person can be put in the articles on his company and on the accident that claimed his life.T v x1 23:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable, and a valid split from OceanGate. I have to disagree with Tvx1's assertion that If he had been a notable businessman prior to his death, he would have already have had an article. Given that we continue to write new articles on Wikipedia, that can't be the case. Mackensen (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but that’s nonsense. A notable businessman who had been active for decades, yet was of interest to no one here prior to dying?? Please just admit the reality that no one would be interested in an article on this person if he hadn’t died this week. T v x1 23:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the fact he did die and was a central figure in a significant event IS enough. You're not giving enough weight to the situation 2A00:23C6:B894:FA01:815C:3D36:1E41:964D (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)— 2A00:23C6:B894:FA01:815C:3D36:1E41:964D (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
No it isn't. Please actually read Wikipedia's content policies. Why do you keep acting with such a know-it-all attitude, even though you haven't any edit whatsoever to this site outside this AFD? T v x1 00:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, he was notable before the implosion i think, but is only more notable now. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No he wasn’t. That’s why we didn’t have an article on him before.T v x1 23:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of these "notable" people write their own articles about themselves, and perhaps Rush didn't think that was important or didn't have the inclination to do it. Just because there wasn't an article before, doesn't mean that after becoming world famous he isn't worthy of an article now. 96.241.148.20 (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)— 96.241.148.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That must have been the worst argument I have read here so far. T v x1 00:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep otherwise Merge and redirect into OceanGate. Rush is unquestionably notable now from the events following Sunday. However, the information in this rather quickly compiled article would be sufficient if moved to the main article of the OceanGate of which he was CEO. Notoriety prior to the Titan incident would indicate an article having been written previously, this is not the case.

If a substantial article can be written on his background, which would be the entirety of his life leading up to the incident, then an article is fine. Otherwise, a detailed section in the OceanGate article would suffice. 11wallisb (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per sources prior to the implosion, Was certainly notable prior to the recent events, Meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I he was, he would have already had an article. T v x1 00:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Firstly, he's had coverage in a myriad of sources before the submersible incident and that compounded with the recent coverage makes him notable. Wikipedia is a work in progress; just because he didn't have an article before does not equate to him not meeting notability requirements now that he does. Additionally, considering that he's now dead, that offers a greater degree of separation between him and OceanGate, which will presumably get a new CEO and move on. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 23:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crucially however, it doesn't give him the required separation from this one event. T v x1 00:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NYT
BBC
Newsweek
The Independent
AP
CBS
San Fran Chronicle
NYP
WaPo
CBC
The Guardian
DW
NBC
The Smithsonian
Bloomberg
doesn't give him the required separation from this one event

Bro, what? How does this fail to confer notability? - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 00:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There are numerous sources mentioning him before the disaster(as per above). He's relevant enough to deserve his own article, especially now.

Emkut7 (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of which demonstrate notability.T v x1 00:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and speedy keep. Let's get the tag off the page ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. T v x1 00:08, 23 June 2023 (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.