Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randal McCloy

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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. The debate boils down to keep-vs-merge, which is not a decision for AfD, and there is no consensus on that question anyway. -Splashtalk 00:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Randal McCloy

Was tagged for speedy deletion by 64.27.214.250 as nn-bio, but he's the survivor of the recent coal mine accident, which is certainly a claim of notability. Not sure, however, if it's encyclopedic. No vote. howcheng {chat} 23:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge into 2006 Sago Mine disaster. We can break him out into a separate article when he does anything that warrants it. howcheng {chat} 17:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It was tagged by an anonymous unregistered user which takes away from the credibility of this article being tagged for deletion. Mr. McCloy is the sole survivor of West Virginia's largest media event and disaster in quite some time, and I think he is deserving of an article since his name will be forever tied to this event. If we delete this article, we will then have to delete the article on Jessica Lynch, and articles on other people who have survived major national tragedies. --Caponer 23:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • McCloy is the only first-hand witness of the 2006 Sago Mine disaster and most likely will create more headline news if he either dies or is able to tell the story of the disaster from the perspective of the victims. Vote to keep. appzter 23:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a current event. We won't know how notable this will or will not be until the dust settles. After reading the arguments for merge and redirect I am compelled to change my vote to that.Ifnord 23:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. The two sock puppets above do cause me some distress however. I'm hoping this isn't some buzz generator to sell a story for a movie-of-the-week. Ifnord 23:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Re: Comment -- Sock puppets? I'm sure you don't mean me, as this is the only account I've ever had. Please try and contribute to the article about this tragedy and its victims instead of making blatant personal attacks. Thanks! appzter 00:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Re: Comment -- In reference to your comment, Ifnord, this is my only account as well so I would take offense if your statement was directed toward me. I've made thousands of contributions under one name: this name. In fact, none of the individuals that had edited this talkpage before you are sock puppets, so your personal attacks are quite unwarranted. Thanks. --Caponer 03:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Both of you posted within minutes of each other and had the same strange formatting: with voting on the end and phrased "vote to keep". I notice that this has been changed, and note that both are once again within a short time frame. So forgive me for assuming sock-puppetry. No personal attack was meant. Ifnord 16:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Article is more than a bio. I have decided, after reading the below statements, I will change my vote to Merge, but only after the main news event is over. Perhaps we could add a special section on the 2006 Sago Mine disaster page that incorporates most if not all of the information on this page. Station Attendant 23:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to 2006 Sago Mine disaster, since McCloy is not notable for anything else except that. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Like with the kid who went to Iraq, there is no reason to delete this at this point. -- JJay 01:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nothing is bad about it and it is a good summary of his life up to today. There is no reason to delete this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.107.161 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. I came looking for this artical for information that I indeed found on it. Wouldn't want to search through the entire mine disaster article to find that information. Plus, he could become more important in the near future. -- Tyrel
  • Keep. After all the crap today about what to call the main article (resulting in a move-protect), there should be no debate about this. Daniel Case 03:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't follow your logic. Why does dispute over what to call an article about a disaster make the survivor of that disaster notable in some way that is separate from the disaster? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is certainly verifiable and noteworthy - McCloy made national news. This might be merged with 2006 Sago Mine disaster at a later date, if desired. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. Will likely be a merge and redirect in a month, but its ok for now. Youngamerican 04:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There will be all sorts of administrative, legal and public inquiries, debates and discussions about the 2006 Sago Mine disaster for years to come. If he recovers and speaks out, McCloy's testimony will be singularly important and historians from the far future will fairly need to look up his background more than many other people with accepted biographies in Wikipedia. If he really fades in the storyline, a merge/redirect could be considered. He hasn't yet, and assuming he will treads dangerously close to the crystal ball... Samaritan 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Your logic seems entirely backwards to me. Right now there is nothing encyclopedically notable about him except that so far he has survived the mine disaster; he hasn't even regained consciousness yet, AFAIK. It's assuming that he will recover, that he will speak out, that his testimony will be singularly important and historians will need to look up background on him that is relying on the crystal ball. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree with Antaeus here. This article is assuming lots of things, and relies on little information. Perhaps we should not rush to create an article about everything we see on TV? JoaoRicardotalk 15:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; he isn't notable. If he writes a book, he'd be notable, but as-is, he's just a random name and a picture in the media. There isn't enough useful information about him, and even if there were, his only "claim to fame" is this mining disaster. He should simply be mentioned in the mining disaster as the sole survivor. Mining disasters happen fairly frequently, and surviving random disasters (unless you survive, like, 10 in a row) is not noteworthy enough for an article. If he writes a book or brings down the Bush administration with his testimony about how they beat coalworkers with sticks, then he's notable. But surviving? No. That'd be like mentioning every single soldier who has been mentioned on the news for dying in Iraq; it just isn't noteworthy enough. 69.59.212.172 05:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Right now, Mr. McCloy is notable considering the current media coverage of his condition and survival. He's not just a random name and a picture in the media, but on the contrary, he is a media darling and has the potential to recover and be outspoken about the events that took place within the mine. He is the only eye-witness to what occured within the mine before his recovery and has the potential to write a book, which meets one of your criteria for making a notable person. Also, not every single soldier has four days of intense media spotlight directed towards them including non-stop 24-hour footage of their ambulance being taken to the hospital and journalists reporting their vital signs and progress from the parking lot of their hospital. To deny Mr. McCloy his deserved and merited status is ridiculous. His name will forever be attached to the 2006 Sago Mine disaster and 2006 in general. --Caponer 05:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It is a major story, and he has become the major player. If he regains consciousness and remembers what happened down there, his will be the recorded version of this tragedy and this article will be greatly expanded. Important and encyclopedic. BigGuy219 06:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, "if" those things happen. Why on earth are people leaping to the conclusion that a man who hasn't yet even come out of his coma is going to be a major spokesman? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to 2006 Sago Mine disaster --Nick Catalano (Talk) 08:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - major story. Essexmutant 11:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into 2006 Sago Mine disaster. When will Wikipedians stop making an article for every person that makes headlines in the United States? We are not a newspaper, and we are not USA-centered. Wasn't this supposed to be a world encyclopedia? I haven't heard of this guy, and I doubt anyone else in my country has. We just got the news of the accident itself, and that's enough for us. He may be notable for something else in the future, but now he isn't. People will forget him as they have forgotten thousands of other accident survivors. JoaoRicardotalk 15:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Why the anger? The idea behind Wikipedia is that if we wanted to have an article about every single person who appeared in American Newspapers then we could... In fact, I would rather have that than no entry whatsoever about them! In this case, I voted for merge (see slightly higher) but honestly I would be fine either way... If you want to start contributing individuals who are involved in media-important events in your country, I'm not going to stop you... --Nick Catalano (Talk) 06:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Nick, I apologize for my angry words. I just believe that this tendency to create articles based on news events harms Wikipedia. But I expressed my views too harshly. Sorry! JoaoRicardotalk 20:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I do not understand why this article was created. As noted by many above, if Mr. McCloy becomes a public figure, then he will certaintly receive an article; so far he has done nothing to suggest he wishes to become such. Sdedeo (tips) 16:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

*Total count thus far--I think it is safe to say we have ourselves a keeper. --Caponer 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC) **Keep: 13 **Merge: 4 **Delete: 2

  • Merge. I actually don't think we have ourselves a keeper....--Khoikhoi 00:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If the over-reported story of the disappearance of Natalee Holloway can get an article, then this should too. Being a lone survivor of a disaster that is has been reported nationally (and somewhat internationally) is enough to me. I'm guessing he will be making the talk show rounds eventually. Let this stay and accumulate info. Kalmia 01:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The difference being that there is no other article besides Natalee Holloway for the events that make Natalee Holloway to be described at. If it were discovered, for instance, that she had been by a previously unknown Aruban branch of the Matamoros cult, then I'd be for moving the article to Aruban branch of the Matamoros cult and making "Natalee Holloway" a redirect to it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. I agree with Sdedeo on the point that he has not at this point become a public figure, however, he is a very important part of this tragedy, and will most likely play a larger part in the future. -- inhuman14
  • Keep. As the sole survivor of a disaster like this, he's notable right now, and is highly likely to remain so (c.f. Stuart Diver). Ambi 03:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. Information is certainly relevant as part of the disaster and the disaster is certainly encylop(a)edic. -- Berserkr731 04:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect for the reasons already stated 24.9.10.235 04:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; encyclopedia-worthy --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 05:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. I feel the same was as Berserkr731 does about this article. --That Guy, From That Show! 05:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - If this guy becomes a media sensation, which he might, then having his own article would be acceptable. But assuming that he's going to become one and then writing an article is just not for wikipedia. Because then we'd have to keep articles on "up and coming" singers and actors who are just seeking some publicity/promotion. But anyway, all the information here should just be added into a section on the mine disaster. And I've voted merge on other AFDs only to have my vote counted as keep. I would rather have the thing deleted. - Hahnchen 06:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge for now since he's obviously pivotal in this whole ordeal. Once he begins to stand out, move to his own section. eszetttalk 11:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to 2006 Sago Mine disaster, as his survival and progress are currently nothing more than a postscript to the Sago accident. As mentioned, he can have his own article if he actually does anything noteworthy in the continued aftermath. --DavidK93 13:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As the sole survivor from a major incident, he definitely warrants his own article. mdmanser 15:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable, he is the sole survivor of a major mining disaster and has receivied massive international media coverage. Zerbey 15:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect, Not notable. Unknown outside the USA. If he ever does become notable, the redirect can change to a stand-alone page. We don't write articles based on sympathy.
  • Merge and redirect, as Mr. McCloy does not presently warrant an article. As it presently stands, all the information about him that is encyclopedic relates to the 2006 Sago Mine disaster. Jeff Lipschultz 16:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. He is an important part of the story, but this article is short enough to be a section in the main disaster article. --Chattycathy 21:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as above. Chuck 23:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He is notable and this will definitely expand. FullSmash26 00:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'd like to see you breathe CO for 42 hours and not die. I think that makes one pretty notable. Eightball 02:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as listed above, perhaps under "survivors" in the main category. For all the emotional ones out there, merging doesn't take away from importance or prominence - it is just a more appropriate place, possibly even better, consider the fact that maybe a user in Colombia wants to read about the survivor, and cannot recall his name; a survivor's section in the main article would prevent such. See also the AfD on CNN Coverage of Sago Mine Disaster --Jay (Reply) 04:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Agree with Jay. It is right to merge this into the 'Sago Mine' topic because this site ONLY talks about the disaster that happened to him and NOT his life story. Housefan 12:43 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Very notable and topical article. Revisit in a year to merge and/or delete. Turnstep 23:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge for now, especially if nobody's going to expand it to include actual biographical data about him. Other than his birthdate, everything covered in the article occured after the incident. Many news sources are reflecting on details about his life before the accident, so it shouldn't be hard to fill out, but that should probably wait a couple weeks until we know how significant of a figure he's going to be (because let's face it, if he dies tomorrow, he'll just fall in among the other victims and won't be so noteworthy). -VJ 12:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Temporary Keep until it is no longer a news story, then Merge with 2006 Sago Mine disaster. Captain Jackson 23:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, with an option to merge into Sago Mine Disaster article after time has passed. Arbiteroftruth 01:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Kinda borderline, but this mine story has gotten a lot of attention. The dead miners probably don't need individual articles, but the sole survivor may be notable enough to qualify. Everyking 03:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge event-driven conflation with encyclopedic material. Eusebeus 18:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. All those that advocate deletion because all of the information in the article pertains to the 2006 Sago Mine disaster should be voting to delete (many of) the articles on sports figures or celebrities that contain little biographical information and instead focus on the notable information about the person. No attack meant. appzter 01:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No attack meant in saying, incorrect analogy. A sports figure or a celebrity (well, most celebrities) actually take some action that makes them notable. Randal McCloy, on the other hand, was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, and the only notable thing that he did was endure longer than the others. Someone said "I'd like to see you breathe CO for 42 hours and not die. I think that makes one pretty notable." Well, no, it doesn't; it may qualify you for the Guinness Book of World Records, but it doesn't make you encyclopedically notable. Now if the various predictions that have been made for Randal McCloy did come true -- that he's going to be a major spokesman or get his own talk show, or something -- then those actions would be an argument for keeping a separate article instead of merging. But none of those things have happened yet and we don't know that they will. According to the latest news, his biggest achievement is having some signs of brain activity even though he is still not out of a partial coma. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into 2006 Sago Mine disaster. --King of All the Franks 17:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge--Nn-user 19:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • User's 6th edit. CDC (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2006 (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.