Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gray Powell

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 delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gray Powell

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

First Deletion Reason: Pursuant to WP:BLP1E and WP:BLP regarding Non-Public Figures: “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.”[1] Subject of the article is non-notable, except for the brief flurry of news surrounding his involvement in the loss of the 4th Gen iPhone prototype. Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. Here, the current redirect is to iPhone, where there is ZERO mention of Mr. Powell, and is unlikely to be as the story is just a bug on the windshield of Apple's dominating PR apparatus. There is no event article. Should Apple make substantive changes to its security practices as a result of this incident, and should the reputable press write about it, we can then create an article to describe the event. Otherwise, it's just too newsy and gossipy for our purposes. Let's leave the sensationalism to Gawker. AkankshaG (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's reasoning. The only things we can say about this person revolves around an apparent error in judgment, if the story is even factually accurate. The rest of his life is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. Per WP:BIO1E, if anything, we should write an article about the event, but honestly, I don't see any true notability in the event itself either, past the gadget blogs and Apple fanatics. If this does lead to a change in the way Apple does business or handles their development, maybe then we can write an article about the event. --Darkwind (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:1E - I had redirected this article, but reading Darkwind's reasoning, I am also not convinced the event is notable either. --Triwbe (talk) 05:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The New York Times has written about the theft, though the article does not mention Gray Powell by name. Gray Powell passes the Google test. If this series of events leads to a lawsuit or criminal charges, it may be notable as a sidenote on the iPhone or Gizmodo pages. I don't know the policy regarding current events of dubious notability, but it is likely too early to tell. --John Hupp (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nomination has been well-researched and worded (especially the afterword about Gawker, which just happens to run Gizmodo) and I feel that this was an event that will be in the tech news world the equivalent of a Balloon Boy or one of those 'kid drives and causes havoc' stories. We will likely never hear about this person again, he's probably learned his lesson and that should be the end of it. Definite BLP and 1E concerns. Certainly add a little about the details whenever the 4G phone is announced, but make sure that the bent of the text is not sensationalist or bent towards this person. Nate • (chatter) 11:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The stub article is factual, not sensationalist, and the individual in question has gained a significant amount of media attention over the past few days. Whether his notability will be sustained for more than a few months is unknown, but I'd keep the article for now and re-assess the continued notability later. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear cut case of wp:blp1e. Pcap ping 23:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Darkwind. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An engineer who loses his doublenaught-secret cell phone in a moment of inattention would seem to be the epitome of a person famous only for one event. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor guy. He probably doesn't want the spotlight, so wikipedia shouldn't force it on him. Max Legroom (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: My sentiments exactly. AkankshaG (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasoning above. If he becomes a public figure or achieves greater notability as a result of this incident, the article can always be recreated. -Juansmith (['[User talk:Juansmith|talk]]) 19:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He got his fifteen minutes of fame; let's not stretch it out. He needs at least one more event. (Of course, it might be harder for Apple to fire his ass if he were a well-known figure with a wikipedia page.) PhGustaf (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article as written now is libelous and warrants a Speedy delete! "The person responsible..?" Calling all admins... jk (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 05:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per others stating WP:ONEEVENT WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2010 (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.