Deletion of John Smeaton (baggage handler)

Comment: Please read , Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability, Wikipedia:Pokémon test
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: if not for the follow-on attention after the fact that he has received, I'd have said merge with the Glasgow airport event article, but mentioned in numerous es for the internet phenom and therefore seems notable for that too and  ceases to apply
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: and merge content into 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack. ''Please'' could the editors whose only justification is "the guy deserves an entry" read Wikipedia policy on what is (and is not) notable |here, and also what Wikipedia is not for |here. Press coverage, by itself, does not establish notability... and is also not necessarily a reliable source. It's a fine line as to how much fame someone needs before they become notable - I would argue that people like Jade Goody, Paris Hilton etc should not have articles either, because they are non-notable people from an encyclopedic perspective. Does Mr Smeaton deserve a medal? I'd be honoured to pin it on him myself... but does he belong in an encyclopedia? Taking an unemotional, rational look at it - sorry, no
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:NOT)

Comment: He meets several aspects of io and his article is referenced by multiple non-trivial sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Bots (WP:B)

Comment: or merge as a sentence to the main Glasgow incident article.  As per  we should not have have articles on people only notable for a single event.   Only if he establishes independent notability seperate from this one incident would a seperate article be valid
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: At the moment, John Smeaton is highly notable and what's currently being said about him is positive and can easily be backed by reliable sources. To delete the article now would be presumptuous. This could go either way - either he's further lauded and becomes like Wesley Autrey or Todd Beamer, or he's forgotten about and we have no reason to keep an article on him. As we can't predict the future, it's best not to delete this in the presumption he will be forgotten about in the future. Wikipedia's  policy does not demand we immediately delete articles that private people in the news for one event. What it actually says is if the person "remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them". It's too early to tell if we should "generally avoid" having a John Smeaton article, specifically because the media story has not run out and John may well be in line for some award or honour, which would raise his profile. Remember that the media aren't just publishing stories of his attack on terrorists, they're also publishing stories about the website set up in his honour, the calls for him to appear at T in the Park, the 1000 pints pledged to him, the call for giving him a medal, etc. It's about ''him'', rather than ''his part in thwarting the attack
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: into 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack even though I'm sure the result of this debate will be keep. Seems a lot of people are using the "he's awesome" reason or the  reasoning. But overall he is probably notable
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)

Comment: Wikipedia is not an Conservapedia|American encyclopedia and does not intend to be biased towards the US. |Notability is how we determine whom and what should be included, not personal feelings. Also, working class people are inevitably going to be less notable as individuals than others as they are the least likely to have had reliable published sources about them
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: The mergists are arguing that  applies here - will he be remembered 6 months, a year, five years down the line?  suggests that we should not cover hype, or at the very least merge it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Demonstrable name recognition, multiple sources referenced. Passes . Buy him a pint
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: per the above.  Passes  (specifically, "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" -Wang Weilin, anybody?), supported by multiple non-trivial references in reliable news sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)