Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Beamer (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Todd Beamer}} ([{{fullurl:Todd Beamer|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Beamer (2nd nomination)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

That Todd beamer was heroic is not in dispute. That he deserves to be remembered is not in dispute. That people will see this nomination as in some way demeaning to his memory is inevitable. It remains that Todd, however brave, is notable for this one, heroic event (see WP:BIO1E), and for nothing else. A memorial on Wikipedia is against our guidelines. (see WP:NOTMEMORIAL). Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. He's still notable, and notability isn't temporary.SPNic (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I don't think that "one event" is a fair description. If I recall correctly, President Bush invited his widow to the 2002 State of the Union speech and singled out Mr. Beamer for special mention. In the last few years, he's been the lead in movies about Flight 93. Perhaps it's not fair that he has been made more notable by the media, but saying that he's notable for one event is like saying that J.D. Tippit is notable for only one event. Mandsford (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

:*Comment you know, it is this one event that caused all the subsequent attention. He was a brave man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. And if consensus says again that the article should be kept, so be it. We do need to make sure we discuss it based upon guidelines, not upon any feelings of patriotism, or a need to honour the gentleman. After all, that is what we do here, reach consensus. It was only nominating this for deletion that found the first nomination, btw, since that has been lost in the article's deleted history. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

:::: You are correct that consensus would control. AfD can be defined as the place where a bunch of us nobodies decide whether someone else is notable. The guideline simply says that "consideration" needs to be given to various factors, and suggests that we look at what the "one event" was: "When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." The "one event" rule is not a strict code, and it certainly does not mean that everyone has to attain fame through two or more unrelated acts. For the most part, history is filled with people who did only one important thing in their lives. Mandsford (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::* "He was a brave man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time." Scared men are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Brave men are in the right place at the right time. Big difference. --Tombstone (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Beamer and his actions received an incredible amount of press coverage after the attacks and his story has become an integral part of the United Airlines Flight 93 timeline. Clearly encyclopedic, notable, and with plenty of refs. Joshdboz (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment You say "After the attacks", and that is, surely, the point. He became famous posthumously because of one notable event. Isn't that what WP:BIO1E is all about? It says "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted.". I see nothing wrong with altering the policy of that is what consensus desires, but that is a different discussion. Again, if consensus keeps the article, that is an important outcome. But, in that case, let us make our policies and guidelines crystal clear with no scope for a nomination such as this one. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• You seem to be misinterpreting BIO1E. That is to prevent an article from being created because, say, someone robbed a bank and they were on the local news one night. Or someone had a very minor role in a larger event, and where all that person's info could be reasonably included in the main article. It is not to prevent the inclusion of people who are clearly notable because of the amount, duration, and depth of press coverage they received. Joshdboz (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Beamer is clearly one of those heroes who will be remembered, along with various aspects of his life, for a good long time, and the sheer volume of coverage amply demonstrates enduring historical notability. WP:BIO1E is meant to screen out people who won't be remembered as being of note due to marginal involvement in news events, as opposed to figures of immense symbolic importance. RayAYang (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. While he has been mentioned many times in the press, this fellow isn't inherently notable beyond BLP1E. Perhaps a subsection in another article would be more appropriate, but as it stands, policy is pretty clear here, and policy overides concensus. Hardly immensely important, this chap just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and made the best of a bad situation. Out of interest, do we have an article on the Glaswegian chap who decked a terrorist who drove a car bomb into Glasgow airport? Just a thought. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, we do. See John Smeaton (baggage handler). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per RayAYang. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. BIO1E says "When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime..." Please don't tell me 9-11 is a relatively important crime. SYSS Mouse (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, since the "one event" with which Beamer is associated is an extremely historic one. Compare Franklin Sousley, Harlon Block, Michael Strank, etc., who would be non-noteworthy soldiers except for their participation in Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Heck, someone could argue that Nathan Hale is associated with only one event. This strikes me as a misapplication of WP:BIO1E. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per RayAYang, Josiah Rowe and SYSS Mouse. I agree that the particular BIO criterion being cited was meant to screen out people who got mention in the press for one event and forgotten afterwards. However, this guy was awarded a significant award, he was a significant part of a historic event (it was even put to film) and it is unlikely he'll fade in obscurity as the people this guideline is supposed to be applied to. Also, the cited criterion says "then a separate biography may be unwarranted." The guideline is purposely vague to allow for personal interpretation. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note that there is the start, of a discussion on WP:BIO1E on the relevant talk page, and any interested parties might wish to determine whether any redrafting is required. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep with a Sirhan Sirhan bullet. Precedent has shown that editor consensus is that individuals who have received notice above and beyond the single event are notable. The question is coverage in reliable and verifiable sources beyond that single evnet, and Beamer fits that bill. As described above, I fully support redrawing the line on what is included in BLP1E. Alansohn (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• keep Per Alan. The example I general give in this context is John Hinkley or Lee Harvey Oswald who are "BLP1E" but are so notable that we would keep them. This is such a situation. Furthermore, this individual is dead so surrounding BLP issues do not apply. Also, BLP1E is meant to try to protect privacy of individuals. This may be more relevant when someone is notable only for a negative thing. However, Beamer is a hero so that does not apply. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• We have a policy against memorials because their would-be sources, obituaries, are neither neutral nor verifiable. Media portraits of Beamer such as this one, [http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93beamerbiop8.asp], may be more reliable and fact-checked than your average obituary, but they are far from the serious inquiry that a real biography consists of. This isn't surprising. Beamer is a hero and deserves to be memorialized, not studied.

  If indeed there are no genuine biographies of Beamer outside of Wikipedia, there is no way we can write one here that passes Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The References currently in the article are primarily descriptions of his actions on 9/11 that made him a hero. The article should be redirected to United_Airlines_Flight_93 unless and until neutral sources can be found that are actually about him. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Uh, come again? Are you claiming that if sources aren't perfectly neutral then they aren't good enough? That's not the way Wikipedia policy works at all. We care about the sources reliability not neutrality. Almost nothing in this universe is neutral, and I'd question whether neutrality is something that can possibly exist as anything more than an ideal to be strived for. The bottom line is that we have multiple, independent reliable sources about him. Indeed, we have many such sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per JoshuaZ. Salih (talk) 08:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Of course - seems to be snowing. There are 495 gbooks hits, including a biography co-authored by his wife [http://books.google.com/books?as_isbn=0842374183]. Tons of reliable sources, passing GNG by a mile. As futile a nomination as one of Lee Harvey Oswald would be. BLP1E and other guidelines were not intended for, and are not written to exclude such obvious keep articles. John Z (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - it's clear that the AfD for Sandeep Unnikrishnan is what has triggered this one. Major Unnikrishnan's defenders are quite correct that Todd Beamer is no more notable than Maj. Unnikrishnan, both owing their fame to WP:BLP1E. Either both articles should be deleted or both kept. It would be hypocritical of Wikipedia to come to different decisions simply because one subject is American and has more online defenders than the Indian subject. -- Arwel Parry _(talk) 10:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep JoshZ nailed it. Yanksox (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO1E and per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Dekisugi (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as being notable for one heroic event sounds like notability indeed, not a simple victim. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Is this ready for a WP:SNOW closing yet?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Obvious keep - his notability is lasting,[http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Todd+Beamer%22&btnG=Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&um=1&as_user_ldate=2003&as_user_hdate=2008] he is still well known today for the event, and most people would consider him "worth noting", so the logic of the "1 event" rule does not apply here. Wikidemon (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

: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.