Deletion of JetBlue Flight 1052

Comment: When it all said and done, this article is about a non-notable flight in which someone decided to quit his job at the end of it. If articles were created every time a non-notable person quit his job for non-notable reasons just because the event gets some press, then that would create a difficult precedent to over-come. Some wikipedia guidelines that would rule against this are Wikipedia:Notability (events), ecentism, and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:R||WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: Changing the article title to JetBlue Flight 1052 skirts past the BLP1E issues, but creates other problems.  The flight number itself does not point singularly to this event.  It's ok to use flight numbers for articles about crashes, because generally those flight numbers are retired and never used again after a crash.  However, there is a new JetBlue Flight 1052 probably once every day.  Which particular flight does this article describe?  What if another notable event happens during a subsequent JetBlue 1052?  Will we have to move this article to JetBlue Flight 1052 (August 9, 2010)?  Anyway, problems with the article title aside, this article clearly runs afoul of .  News sources are ok to use as sources for information, but they do not necessarily confer notability.  Notability is not temporary.  In a year's time, no one will remember this person or this event.  An encyclopedia is not about documenting isolated news stories.  Now, if Steven Slater goes on to host a notable reality show and gets his own talk show or something, ''then'' we can start a bio article on him and mention the details of his outburst.  At this point, however, this is just a single non-notable event.  Everyone needs to calm down and wait for this to become notable before starting an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: changed from Delete at the last AFD (for Steven Slater). Now that the initial storm of heated argument that follows any article created on a current news story has blown over, I think we can judge the subject more clearly, and in this case the subject is unquestionably notable. Given the length, wide reach and depth of coverage,  does not apply. Yes, I still think the amount of coverage this pretty trivial story got is ridiculous - and I think the length of our article on it is faintly ridiculous as well - but it clearly struck a chord with many people, and in any case, our job is not to judge the media. Our job is to judge notability, and by any objective standard, this article passes the test
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Massive amounts of coverage in reliable sources from all over the world, coverage still ongoing after two weeks, has some small claims to lasting impact. I think this meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: A strong case for this event's inclusion can be made from .  It has already had a measurable impact, with a Republican party commercial based on the event and a reality tv-show being offered to Slater.  The event has also served as a proverbial lightening-rod and reference-point, inspiring discussion of a wide range of contemporary social issues including the state of the economy (with wage stagnation, job insecurity, etc.), conditions of workers in service-industry jobs, the current state of air-travel (including the stress resulting from all the post 9/11 security measures), and sexual orientation/homophobia. Much in-depth analysis relating to these issues has already been published, for example http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_34/b4192005528107.htm, http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/08/11/i_was_a_flight_attendant/index.html, and http://www.slate.com/id/2263912/.  Per , there's been significant "duration of coverage."  The event happened two and a half weeks ago, and it's still being covered.  With the trial set to start next month, there's no reason to believe there won't continue to be more coverage in the future.  The event clearly meets  with very significant and in-depth coverage in many different parts of the world.  A Taiwanese TV station even made an animation based on the event.  And, as I've already stated, there has been very significant #Depth_of_coverage.  Finally,  states that: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable."  So even if this event's lasting effect has not yet been completely proven, there is still no reason the article should be deleted, in light of the overwhelming diversity, persistence, and depth of the coverage that this event has already received
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:PERSISTENCE||WP:DIVERSE||WP:EVENT)

Comment: per nom. Fails  and more specifically its subsection . While this event gained coverage during its news cycle, it is hardly encyclopedic as an event that will have long-term memory or effect
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:SENSATION)

Comment: to JetBlue#Incidents and accidents and merge a thumbnail of the content, per Sjakkalle.  Also, since this event was news predominantly because of what one person did, we're going to end up with an event page that's almost exclusively about a person who is otherwise not notable, which could present some  problems. If it's kept, it really needs some trimming -- the timeline section is completely superfluous, IMO. &mdash
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: this is exactly the sort of thing that #NEWS has in mind. There is a lot of short-term coverage which then quickly disappears, both from coverage and from memory. If there are still instances of significant coverage 6-12 months from now, an article may become appropriate then
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: People voting keep should have a look Can anyone siting "lasting impact" actually give even one notable and reliable example of lasting impact?  Any legislation that has resulted or is being planned?  Any effects on corporate bottom lines, or stock prices?  Even any documented effects on the everyday lives of either travelers or flight attendants or service staff in general?  This event is more appropriately covered, as it in fact already is, as a subsection of the JetBlue Airways article.  As for duration of coverage, I'm already seeing fewer and fewer stories, and some of those are either mentioning him in passing, or some actually saying "Time to move on, folks."  And this seems like it comes close to falling in the subsection 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SENSATION)

Comment: per . Non-notable airline incident. If Steven Slater isn't notable enough for his own article, then the event related to his escapades certainly isn't
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per . This remains an non-notable incident
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: passes . This incident has had a lasting impact, with articles still being written about it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: I've tossed in my mind between delete and keep on this, but at the end of the day, coverage isn't enough - a point forgotten by quite a few of the keep !votes.  (and ) require ''impact'' as well. In my view, this is high coverage but very low impact, per Sjakalle above. It has had ''some'' impact (see Hobit above) but that impact can be dealt with proportionately in the relevant JetBlue article. That the flight article now has an exhaustive timeline of "events" is indicative of how disproportionate a separate article is
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: As we should be following , as it is to that guideline that the appropriate section in #NEWS links to, i'll be focusing my argument on that. The part that states "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" is clearly indicative of this event, as it was publicized in almost all (if not all) major newspapers in the world. And it has certainly been analyzed afterwards. Another reason for notability would be the "Geographical Scope" of the coverage and there is certainly enough diversity in the available sources. And, though the subject is not breaking news anymore, that section does state "Articles about breaking news events —particularly biographies of participants— are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:NOT)