Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Simpson

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 delete. --Coredesat 00:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Star Simpson

Star Simpson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This person is known for only one incident. WP:BLP1E suggests that an article on the incident may be appropriate, but not a biography on the person. Wikipedia is not a news blotter. Dean Wormer 20:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Yeshivish 20:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet GRBerry 03:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Jack Ruby is also known because of only one event. Should we delete him as well? Kinston eagle 20:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Ruby's crime had far-reaching consequences, and has continued to be notable, and he himself carried notability through his lifetime. Not a good comparison. Dean Wormer 21:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Hard to believe anyone would compare a minor conceptual artist to an important homicidal mobster and strip-joint operator like Mr. Ruby. Qworty 03:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment If the standard for WP was that they had to be as notable as Jack Ruby, WP would have very few biographical entries. Nbauman —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. That is a straw-man argument. I'm not saying Jack Ruby should define the height of the notability bar. I'm saying that the assertion that this particular conceptual artist is just as notable as Jack Ruby constitutes a false comparison. Even the women who took their clothes off in Ruby's clubs--who might be considered more or less "artistic" than Star Simpson--do not merit their own articles unless they are somehow notable in the investigation of the JFK assassination. Qworty 18:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. The argument was not that Star Simpson is as notable as Jack Ruby, but that someone can be notable because of one notable incident alone.
I think that the incident itself is notable. Many technical people read WP. We now have a system in which (1) Airport guards are under instructions to stop (and sometimes shoot) people who are bearing electronic equipment that the guards are not familiar with. (2) Airport guards are not familiar with common electronic equipment that is used in every high school physics lab, and for sale in every Radio Shack store in the country. (3) This means that any geek in the country is liable to be shot by an airport guard for innocently carrying an object that he or she could not reasonably have known would be dangerous. There is nothing in the airport signs that tells you not to carry electronic equipment that ignorant guards won't recognize. So this is important information to WP readers, and it will still be important after it's not news any more. (4) It also illustrates the ignorance and stupidity of the Boston airport guards and police (again) who freak out at the sight of simple electronic equipment that has been used for decades in signs and jewelry. Haven't they seen an LED before?
People have posted links to WP policies on what is not notable. Can somebody post the links to WP policies on what is notable? Nbauman 21:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Take any subjects that are both verifiable and notable and remove the subjects that are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. 17Drew 00:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
OK. It's verifiable. It's notable. WP:NOTE "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." That's true.
In addition it's notable for the reasons I gave above. Many people believe that this is an example of an absurd over-reaction by airport security to a non-threat, which could have resulted in her death. That makes it notable.
The objections all seem to be WP:IDONTCARE. What objections do you have that don't fall into that category? Nbauman 02:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
From what I can see, nobody has commented on whether or not they care about reading the article. Obviously, individual users' preferences as to what kind of articles they like to read don't have an impact on what articles should be deleted. Maybe the link to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not wasn't prominent enough. Here it is: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Specifically, articles that don't have "historical notability" don't belong on Wikipedia. 17Drew 04:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll address this to the admins who will make the final decision about deletion.
I've given several reasons why this event is noteable for an encyclopedia. I'm trying to figure out why people are so hostile to its inclusion. If you read the Delete comments, they basically say that we should delete the article because they personally dislike Star Simpson (and many of the comments are abusive). "I don't like her" is not a valid reason for deletion. Nbauman 06:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind pointing out one comment where WP:IDONTLIKEIT was the primary reason to delete? From what I can see, both Hardnfast and Resolute said that the article should be deleted because of WP:BLP1E and/or WP:NOT#NEWS. The WP:IDONTLIKEIT comments were asides to the actual reasons to delete. If you're still trying to figure out why people want the article deleted, I would recommend reading their comments. WP:BLP1E states that people known for involvement in one event should be covered in an article about the event, not the person. WP:NOT#NEWS says that events that don't have historical notability may belong at Wikinews, but not at Wikipedia. 17Drew 19:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Since you ask -- I was thinking of ad hominem comments like these, below:
"Is Wikipedia going to now create pages for every idiot who perpetrates a bomb threat hoax?"
"If we start adding articles for every random whacko who does something stupid, We'll be having a billionth article poll in no time."
I could accept the argument that it is the incident and not the person that is noteworthy, if you wanted to create a page about the incident instead, or merge it with Boston Logan Airport Fake Bomb Incident. However, you'd have to rename that page, because the claim that it's a "fake bomb" is only the POV of the police. Simpson's lawyer argues that it was never intended to look like a bomb, it doesn't look like a bomb, and it wasn't a fake bomb (and I haven't seen any evidence that it was a fake bomb). "Bomb scare" is more accurate. Nbauman 21:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
And as I stated, both people who made those comments made them as an aside after giving a valid policy-based reason. Please stop pretending that people are drawing from WP:AADD for their primary reasons to delete, especially when you still have yet to address how Simpson has historical notability . I've mentioned WP:NOT#NEWS now ten times in the course of this discussion, and yet you still haven't provided a reason why an article about her doesn't fail it. 17Drew 22:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a story on Slashdot today about the Steve Kurtz case, and the comments repeatedly compare it to the Star Simpson case. They argue that both cases are part of a broader pattern of government agencies arresting artists and other innocent people for possessing ordinary high school science class equipment, and prosecuting them even after they establish that they were not terrorists and were engaged in harmless activities. You can agree with that or not, but it's a valid position that a lot of people believe in (WP:WEIGHT), including civil libertarian lawyers.
This is one more reason why the Star Simpson story is notable, together with the other reasons I've given, which are not refuted by the WP:NOT objections. Nbauman 15:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - agree entirely with the nominator. I've seen some very marginal 'person-in-the-news' articles come up for deletion recently, but this one beats them all. And just where is the evidence she's received 'international attention', anyway? Terraxos 21:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. As WP:BPLP1E says, a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted in a case like this. bikeable (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete with no prejudice against recreating later should there be greater impact. Artw 00:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not been mentioned in the UK news as far as I know (just saying, she's not had much international attenion everywhere.) This will be forgotten tomorrow or soon, if it's not put on wiki. She should be allowed to get on with her life really.Merkinsmum 01:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Her website seems to be gone (times out) so she clearly wants her privacy.Merkinsmum 01:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Or the site is getting too much traffic from people trying to access it.Bupobm 02:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
It is getting international attention. I saw it in the Guardian, the Register, and a few more. Search Google News by country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbauman (talk • contribs) 21:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. The Jack Ruby comparison is frivolous. Gazpacho 02:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per WP:BLP1E. --kine 03:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This just came on the news today. That means that tomorrow it'll be yesterday's news, and even more trivial than it was today. Unfortunately, she'd probably have to show up with a real bomb to become notable. Qworty 03:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Wait for the weekend to pass. Maybe this will be a big news event (like the ATHF hoax), maybe not. But we should know within the next week. (Or we could move to wikinews until then). Remember 03:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete until such time as the subject either does something else notable or this one event proves to be such a significant event that an article not only about the event but about her would be appropriate. Even if this were a notable event, the first article to create would be the article about the event. We don't even need that right now. Erechtheus 04:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS, since the event doesn't have long-term historical notability. 17Drew 06:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Wait — I agree with Remember. — RJH (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Wait See How Long News Stories About This Incident Last. --Christopher Kraus 18:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I don't think this will be as big as the ATHF thing, but it does show that Boston is afraid of Blinkenlights. dcandeto 23:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a non-notable WP:COATRACK article. If it continues to receive media coverage 4-6 weeks from now, we can re-evaluate the topic on Deletion review. RFerreira 04:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Star Simpson is an artist, and artists are encyclopedic. The only question is whether she's notable enough. She's a young artist. She's at least a minor artist. Would an encyclopedia be better if it included minor artists? I think so. (We've got plenty of disk space.) She's an electronic artist, which I think makes her more notable. She's a woman engineer, which is noteworthy. When I went to college there were no women in engineering. Deserved or not, she gained attention. There will always be people who say, "Remember that girl at MIT who was arrested in the airport with a fake bomb?" We would be better serving our readers if we could give them a better account than they'd get with a random Google search. There are 28,000,000 Google hits on "Star Simpson", but most of them are written by people who don't know what a proto board is or have never seen electronic jewelry. It would be useful to provide links to a half dozen good stories, and a summary of what they'd find there. Nbauman 05:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    Your comment is good at stating WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING, but Wikipedia isn't. Also, see WP:NOTE#NEWS: "While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news." 17Drew
I was not saying that WP should include everything. I was giving the reason why Star Simpson is notable and important. WP:NOTE "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
Can you address the question of whether Star Simpson is notable?
Thanks for the links, though. I can now recognize that most of the arguments above are WP:IDONTCARE. Nbauman 16:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
You were saying that Wikipedia should include young minor artists because there's disk space and because she's a woman in engineering. That's not notability at all. Especially when she's not an artist as you state; the device was an elaborate nametag for a career fair, not some sort of art project. The news stories imply notability, but WP:NOT#NEWS is a policy unlike WP:NOTE and states that news stories that don't have historical notability belong at Wikinews, not Wikipedia. 17Drew 16:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Who refers to it as a "nametag"? She calls herself an artist on her web site, and some of the articles refer to it as an art work. It's a simple art work, but I know big-name artists who created simple jewelry like that (in metal and semi-precious stones, not LEDs). How do you decide whether she's an artist? Nbauman 17:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The sources state that she had created the device in the shape of a star (her name) so that she could wear it to MIT's career fair and set herself apart. 17Drew 17:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a high-profile instance of an important modern conflict. It should be recorded and saved here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobikey (talk • contribs) 16:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:COATRACK isn't policy, and isn't applicable anyway. From that essay: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject." There's no bias here. As for WP:BLP1E, this is not an instance in which an article about the event would be superior. Virtually everyone seeking information about the event would enter "Star Simpson" in the search box. JamesMLane t c 17:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    You haven't addressed WP:NOT#NEWS, which states that "While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news." Nothing in this case has happened to suggest that this will have any historical notability. 17Drew 17:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
That paragraph of the policy says that it may preclude a bio. I'd take "contextualize" here to mean that, in some instances, a person notable only because of one event can be best covered in an article about the event. For example, we had a Jennifer Wilbanks article, but now instead that title redirects to Runaway Bride case. In this instance, I don't see a more appropriate title. JamesMLane t c 01:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The Runaway Bride case involves a "disappearance", a major search effort, a false kidnapping allegation, two lawsuits, and a book deal, resulting in media coverage for several months. WP:NOT#NEWS says that in addition to often covering the case and not the individual, the case should have "historical notability" or else it belongs at Wikinews. This is already off of the Google News front page, and there's nothing about the case that implies it has historical notability. 17Drew 01:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't saying that the two cases have received equal attention. I was answering the specific point you asked me to address, namely the applicability of WP:NOT#NEWS. Specifically, I was giving you my interpretation of "contextualize" in that policy: If we decide to cover something, sometimes a bio article would be appropriate, but other times an incident article is better. JamesMLane t c 21:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The last part of my comment referred to the part about WP:NOT#NEWS that states that articles should have "historical notability". Subjects with fleeting notability belong at Wikinews instead of Wikipedia. 17Drew 00:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as noted above, per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS, the event doesn't have long-term historical notability. Is Wikipedia going to now create pages for every idiot who perpetrates a bomb threat hoax? No need to encourage these people. Hardnfast 17:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This is incorrect. Star Simpson did not perpetrate a bomb threat. She never intended to make anything that looks like a bomb, and it in fact does not look like a bomb. It was a breadboard, which every electronics student can recognize. The only bomb was in the overactive imagination of the Boston police.
That is your opinion, mine is that this was her attempt at a publicity stunt. Bottom line is neither of our opinions mean anything in this discussion. This event on its own, and this person do not meet the requirements of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. This event/person is not likely to cause a change in security procedures nor set any legal president. The story is likely to disappear shortly like other airport security incidents that make the Drudge report (think Monica Emmerson and the child’s sippy cup incident in June 2007). One could make an argument that this topic could be included in an article addressing airport security in the US post 9-11, but on its own it doesn't merit inclusion. Hardnfast 14:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


I think the misinformation of people who continue to post messages on here referring to a "bomb threat" is further evidence that the incident is misunderstood and that it is important to have an entry giving the correct facts. Nbauman 21:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOT#ADVOCATE. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If people want to find about about myths and the like, they should use Snopes or a similar site. If they want news, then Wikinews serves that purpose. 17Drew 21:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


  • Comment There is a related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boston Logan Airport Fake Bomb Incident‎. 17Drew 21:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Good God, Delete! per WP:BLP1E and per the fact that this is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. If we start adding articles for every random whacko who does something stupid, We'll be having a billionth article poll in no time. Resolute 00:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, straightforward application of WP:BLP1E. --68.163.65.119 16:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs), 16:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, because recent enough to not yet adequately ascertain her importance. Let us see what coverage she has in a few months, but people will likely come to Wikipedia looking for information on her for the time being. The incident received enough news coverage to indicate notability. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is WP:NOT#NEWS. IF she ever becomes notable, an article can be written from scratch. --Evb-wiki 18:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm tired of you people making Wikipedia a place where I can't find answers to questions anymore due to some paper idea of what is "encyclopedic." You guys have removed a lot of what made Wikipedia wonderful. She's plenty "notable." The wiki medium is not paper and will not run out just because "too many" articles are included. This used to be a guiding principle for Wikipedia, but seems to have been forgotten. It's time to overturn a lot of the destructive standards that have crept in for the past couple of years and start taking advantage of this medium again. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 18:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, you've adequately described WP:NOT#PAPER. Unfortunately, nobody here has stated or implied that Wikipedia is paper or that the article should be deleted to make room for others. Rather, the main issues are WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. You've stated neither why the event has "historical notability" nor why there should be an article on Star Simpson and not the event itself. 17Drew 18:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, famous for only one incident. Who would be as stupid as to bring a circuit board into an airport anyway? JIP | Talk 04:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for the same reasons I mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boston Logan Airport Fake Bomb Incident. This incident isn't likely to have lasting impact, and other than this incident, I don't see Star Simpson as being notable. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not a noteworthy person.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep- one event can be suitably notable, and she is a young, upcoming talent of note with footnotes to back it up.JJJ999 00:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Zander 11:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The event is at least as notable as 2007 Boston Mooninite scare, and although a Google test is not binding, it shows 393 000 results for "Star Simpson". It could be notable in the future, especially as she has been charged with possession of a hoax device, and the case could set a very important legal precedent one way or another. Firestorm 14:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Especially since the device she was in possession of was not a hoax device, and she didn't violate Massachusets law because she had no intent. Nbauman 17:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. Those who voted keep, please consider rewriting it to be an article about the incident or merging with a relevant article on such incidents in general. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 19:24, 28 September 2007 (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.