Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirtstorm

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 merge to Matt Taylor (scientist). Redirect and possible merge

  • The consensus that this event does not meet WP:EVENT is clear (sometimes that point is made via WP:NOTNEWS, but the two are related.)
  • No strong argument was presented against a redirect, some redirect/merge is preferred as a result by WP:ATD.
  • Concerns about how much if anything to merge have a valid basis in policy, but more properly the domain of discussions at the Taylor biography and talk page.
  • Concerns about whether the Taylor biography should be deleted per WP:BLP1E are at this point best addressed in an AfD on Taylor.
--j⚛e deckertalk 22:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shirtstorm[edit]

Shirtstorm (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)

One-off event, already briefly mentioned at Matt Taylor (scientist). Separate article would give the controversy undue weight. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Ghmyrtle. Recommend deletion. beefman (talk) 08:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As things stand right now, it does not meet the standards of notability, and WP:NOTNEWS. If several years from now, this incident will be remembered and mentioned in reliable sources, and prove itself to be something of importance, an article can be created then.2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:4541 (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation: I would like to point that I don't think this incident is merely "sensational nonsense", like some have argued; in fact the Astronomical Society of Australia itself has commented on it [1]; and this incident touches on very many important and sensitive issues. It's just that as things currently stand, the article is in violation of WP:NOTABLE. Maybe in the future it will qualify, but until/unless this happens, such an article should not be created.2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:4541 (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect - A notable event in Matt Taylor's life; it possibly could do with a little more weight in the parent article, but there is certainly no need, right now, for a separate article, due to WP:NOTNEWS. I don't understand how you can argue that it isn't notable, however; it blatantly is. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - not a notable WP:EVENT but perhaps worth a passing mention in his article (thus giving it the same weight as the event when compared to his broader scientific career). St★lwart111 09:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia should not erect a permanent memorial to silliness. The guy is a scientist. He wore a dumb shirt. People tweeted. It's an ephemeral space-filler and per WP:NOTNEWS does not warrant an encyclopedic article. There is also no reason to keep a redirect—is every meme-of-the-day and every attack title to be permanently recorded in the encyclopedia? Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but redirects are cheap. St★lwart111 12:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we delete the redirect after the name is largely forgotten? 70.133.154.32 (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question which of the WP:NOTABLE criteria are not met? There seem to be a significant amount of reliable, secondary sources covering the event itself, though there could be more included in the article. 09I500 (talk) 10:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Taylor appears to be a notable scientist, has an article, and this episode is a significant part of his life which should be mentioned but in a way that does not dominate his article. The long-term implications of his choice of clothes, in so far as it highlights the role of women in science, may become notable enough in time to be mentioned in relevant articles, but we don't yet know that. But, the Twitter storm itself, which this article claims to be about, is not notable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A twitterstorm indeed is trivial, but the scandal received significant coverage: whole articles were devoted to it in Time.com, Jezebel, et al. The links are at the bottom of the article. Measure for Measure (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While Ghmyrtle is correct that this topic does not deserve its own article, I think that it deserves some mention somewhere. Most twitterstorms don't result in significant coverage in supposedly reliable, mainstream sources. This one did. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - delete is not the correct course of action here. It is undoubtedly notable enough to include in at least some detail on the parent page. JTdaleTalk~ 13:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It's too soon to know if this will have independent notability - it looks like classic one event stuff at this point. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Relevant to the coverage of the comet but not enough to constitute its own article --109.148.127.93 (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Arguably, Matt Taylor suffers from WP:BLP1E (most of what is on his page, outside of Shirtstorm, is related to the space mission work and less about him,) and we would keep this article and merge Matt's into this, following the same idea over at JetBlue flight attendant incident. The problem is how to acknowledge that in the AFD on this article. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per (to some extent) BLP1E - I personally see no point in the article when IMHO it's better suited at Matts article. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Few twitterwars are noteworthy and this isn't one. DuusieDos (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This isn't a "twitterwar", it's a newsworthy incident about rampant sexism and is certainly notable. Masem notes that Matt Taylor suffers from WP:BLP1E and suggests merging him into the article; I agree. The alternative - subsuming it into an article about the scientist - misses the point of its notability. Ogress smash! 21:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As an encyclopedia, we do need to have some cognizance of the fact that being the first person responsible for landing a probe on a comet is, in the overall scheme of things, more notable and important than wearing an offensive shirt. So, any merger should be of this article into his article - not vice versa. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He is not a "the first person responsible for landing a probe on a comet", he is one of thousands of people responsible for landing a probe on a comet - who happens to be the one in charge. Ogress smash! 22:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If he's "in charge", he's the one responsible. If you prefer, he's the first person in charge of landing a probe on a comet. Notable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He is the "project scientist" but not the project lead. Again, the end result was an effort by thousands, at the end of the day. If he never wore that shirt, but the project to land remained successful, he wouldn't be considered notable, so BLP1E is fully in effect here. --MASEM (t) 01:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "project scientist" is the lead scientist on the project. If leading the first project to land on a comet is notable, then he is notable regardless of the shirt and this should ultimately end up as a footnote on his page, but if we move it there now it will dominate that article, and there is much more to this man's life than a shirt that some people find offensive. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the past space mission project sciences are typically non-notable in their roles. They may be detailed on the project's page, but we don't give separate articles for them unless there is definitely something more noteworthy about them. If the shirt incident never happened, we'd not have an article on Taylor - his notability is weak at best, and better covered within the project article. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did say "if". But we are getting distracted from the actual issue at hand and the notability of Matt Taylor is a topic for a different AfD. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my vote to keep from merge. There is continuing new coverage and impact relating to misogyny (and cissexism) in the media and releases from astronomical societies stating their position on these issues. Ogress smash! 04:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The votes for merge seem to be unaware of how insistent the censorship of this event has been in Rosetta (spacecraft) as well as in Matt Taylor, so "merge" or "inclusion" within the other articles are, for now, not available. At the same time I'd like to note, that this vote seems to indicate a consensus that it should be included - whereas on the pages there is a "consensus" that it shouldn't. ----Kiyarrlls-talk 00:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it indicates there may be a place for it elsewhere but that this article shouldn't exist because the event itself isn't notable. St★lwart111 01:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a battleground. If it is not notable enough for inclusion in the Rosetta article then why should it have its own article? Do not call other peoples work on this website "censorship" either, you are here to build an encyclopedia --5.81.52.82 (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A small follow-up: as of this writing, this page has more citations than Matt Taylor's page. Either the latter is in great need of expansion, or there really are more reliable sources about Dr. Taylor's shirt than there are about Dr. Taylor himself. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the most pure example of recentism, and social media's ability to blow things so out of proportion as to be unrecognisable. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary for this comment is "Burn it with fire", which doesn't seem very NPOV. Ogress smash! 08:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should agree to return to this issue after the controversy dies down? 70.133.154.32 (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This will be forgotten in two weeks. There is 0 notability for this "shirt controversy". Just because a few newspaper articles also reported on that, this does not warrant space in an online encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a newspaper archive which automatically makes an article for every newspaper report. StoneProphet (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However, it is a searchable term, and we should have something on it somewhere for that reason. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are thousands of searchable terms in the internet. They may even get an article in a newspaper here and there. But we still don't have an article for everything which gets a brief 3 days mention in the news and some social media forums. This is a poster child case for WP:NOTNEWS. StoneProphet (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sufficient coverage to meet WP:N, sufficiently a different topic from Rosetta that it requires it's own article. Artw (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the person's article if the word is deemed useful to get readers to the subject. If all you can say about the matter is "he wore a bad shirt on tv, many criticized, many others criticized the critics", that shows no lasting scope or impact. Tempest in a teapot, soon forgotten. Tarc (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge for now however, we must all be observant. Perhaps there might be more, perhaps not. However, make sure this doesn't overshadow the Rosetta mission mention on Matt's page. This is probably still a sore thing for him, so we as wikipedians should make sure to use highly objective wording. --DSA510 Pls No H8 01:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've hit the nail on the head on why I think we should keep this article separate for now, with plans to merge it after expanding the article on Matt Taylor. Thanks for describing it better than I could. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or redirect/merge. no need for it to be a separate article. Protonk (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. One off event, it's already in the man's article and that's all that's needed here (if that). Volunteer Marek  01:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. So this "storm" happened on 12 November, and Wikipedia's biography of the scientist responsible for the storm was created 15 November 2014. One of our WP:Five pillars should be about respecting all living people, and not just editors. Wbm1058 (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbm1058: I don't know what your comments mean. Can you clarify? Ogress smash! 04:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The timing of the creation of his biography clearly implies WP:BLP1E. Perhaps he is notable for other things and that's just an oversight. Per the article, on 14 November 2014, Dr Taylor made a public apology. “I have made a big mistake,” he said. “I have offended people and I am sorry about this”. That's good enough for me. Grant him a mulligan. Forgive and forget. Sure daily newspapers will write about it, but that doesn't mean we should make it part of his permanent encyclopedic record. – Wbm1058 (talk) 05:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with Matt Taylor. Gamaliel (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge one way or teh other. Retartist (talk) 06:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We're not going to make an article for every sensationalist controversy there is. Footnote on Matt Taylor's article is fine. Loganmac (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article and frankly Matt Taylor. He's "notable" for one event and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This article is an even worse example of news coverage. At best merge, but preferably delete them both. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 18:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The event has relatively little to do with the man who wore the shirt and a lot more to do with how social media and news media interact. Enough big names and major media outlets jumped on the bandwagon to make it well sourced. No need to merge, as there is already more than sufficient coverage at the article on the man himself. This can always be relisted for deletion once it can be shown that the shirt's impact was as long-lasting as a fruit fly. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would partially agree with this - merging to the bio would present weight issues. A link from the bio to this page should remain though. Artw (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the bio per WP:NNC. Ultrauber (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It got hijacked by the SJWs who use this as a plattform to further insult and discredit Dr Taylor. This article is entirely designed to make it look as if the criticism was valid and as if the insults didn't happen. This is a shame for wikipedia. Helester (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, seriously? Delete because you dislike the content? Your edit history is essentially just "Shirtstorm" as well. Ogress smash! 17:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, delete because the article reflects propaganda, and not the truth (they deleted the insults several times) Although this was a serious issue reported by the media. This is not an issue of whether I like it or not its an issue about misinformation and POV. And the people "working" on it have their reasons to change it the way they did. And I do not think it is savable at this point. Helester (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You must not have looked much into it if you think that the article was "hijacked by the SJWs... to further insult and discredit Dr Taylor. I'm fairly sure the article was created for an entirely different reason, that is, to discredit the "SJW"-boogeymen --5.81.52.82 (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the current version M.T got "criticised" by "commentators" nice and vague nothing about insults but a quote "because it sends a clear message to the women around you -- their bodies are really just there for display" why do you think they have picked this one and deleted the insults I have posted with a reference? Oh no but look at that poor woman who has shown a "reaction" towards M.T! She was told to kill herself! Again an excellently chosen tweet. They could have shown both sides ( like they did at a certain point of the article where both of it was included, the insults towards M.T and towards R.E, for a short time before the SJW crowd took over) or they could have posted the tweet asking for M.T to lose his job or the ones calling him an asshole, jerk and scum (all of these were tweets I provided and which were deleted in favour of the sexism one) and we could have also posted tweets directed at R.E asking her to educate herself and engaging in a respectful discussion but this would be extremely one sited, right this would only show the one point of view and not reality, like it is right now. Read the article and then tell me again its not POV and propaganda. I have entered Wikipedia around I think 2 weeks ago or something and have made an article about descaler, about filthy frank and this one, in case you are accusing me of something. Helester (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your other articles are not in your edit history. I see Christina Hoff Summers and a few minor edits and that you created Shirtstorm as one of your very first edits ever: "Shirtstorm (#shirtstorm) also called ShirtGate (a play on the words "Shirt" and GamerGate" is the name of a harassment campaign against Dr Matt Taylor." Ogress smash! 21:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
here you go https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Entkalker&action=history this was the first thing I did, looks like I am on trial huh? For what actually? Nothing to say to the things I addressed? Thought so. Helester (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2014 (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/Shirtstorm&oldid=1138764771"