Home • Search • Translate
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 and redirect to United Express Flight 3411. OK, I don't think this needs to run any longer. There's a certain point where the fine definitions of SNOW and the far more important issues of BLP converge, with the latter overriding it. As it appears that the article on the flight will be probably be Kept (or at least close as No Consensus) then deleting and Redirecting there is an obvious close - let the debate continue at that AfD. Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply

David Dao

David Dao (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I redirected this to United Airlines Flight 3411 but the author wants to fight about here. So here we are wasting out time with an obvious delete. Dao has absolutely no notability outside of the UA incident and that article is undergoing AfD so if it isn't deemed notable enough for inclusion, Dao himself certainly isn't. Justeditingtoday ( talk) 20:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. A very clear waste of time and space. DBaK ( talk) 21:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - as per WP:BIO1E "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." BlueSalix ( talk) 21:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply
    Comment you are leaving out a very relevant part of that guideline - "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified" Justeditingtoday ( talk) 21:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I think it's too early to tell if we should delete the flight article, but I'm sure this guy doesn't deserve his own article. I think "major role" would imply he had some role in planning out and executing the "event", but no, he was just a dude in the wrong place at the wrong time. And I really wouldn't call this event "highly significant", at least not right now. The biographical details in this article are pretty minor, and him being dragged off is actually the entire event, so you'd, in essence, be keeping two articles of the same thing if this was kept. Nohomersryan ( talk) 21:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Nohomersryan - do you feel the fact he's a World Series of Poker Pro who has won nearly $250K on the poker circuit over the last ten years, that he was convicted of 98 charges of drug trafficking in 2004 in a case covered at the time by the Louisville Courier-Journal and WAVE-TV, and he was the subject of significant media coverage over the UAL incident in 2017 make this a case of BLP1E? BlueSalix ( talk) 23:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply
I don't find the World Series of Poker thing very solid, no. He is not listed anywhere on the 2009 World Series of Poker results page, and that's full of people that have no articles. There are tens of thousands of players in each one, and it's not a very convincing claim of notability, especially since it's sourced to an article about him being pulled off the airplane. The other drug trafficking thing is not that impressive, considering all the sources are local news, and could easily be mentioned in the other article (especially since it's more notable as a "guy pulled off plane has checkered past!!" thing than anything). So yes, I'm sticking with my belief that this doesn't deserve its own article. Nohomersryan ( talk) 23:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Nohomersryan First, Wikipedia is not RS, second, the sources are not all local which should be apparent on a quick scan of the article had you undertaken one. But it sounds like we've reached the terminus of your interest in productive contribution to this discussion. Best - BlueSalix ( talk) 23:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The sources of the arrest are directly local from when the event took place, the ones that aren't are in the context of him being pulled off the plane as far as I can tell. Nohomersryan ( talk) 23:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply
So the local RS aren't good because they're only local (a new and novel argument) and the national RS aren't good because they're only national. Makes perfect sense, Nohomersryan. BlueSalix ( talk) 23:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Err, no, I don't find the fact that he was previously in the news solely for something local a solid establishment of notability. The current sources that cover them aren't in context of David Dao the doctor, they're in context of David Dao the man who got shoved off a plane... aka his one event. The source of the second sentence in the "Drug convictions" paragraph is titled "Revealed: All About the Doctor Dragged Off Overbooked United Flight — and His Troubled Past"; it's not what I'd call sustained coverage, and I believe this isn't a case of a previously notable man thrust into the spotlight. Nohomersryan ( talk) 00:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Aircorn - your position is that him being a World Series of Poker Pro who has won nearly $250K on the poker circuit over the last ten years, his conviction of 98 charges of drug trafficking in 2004 in a case covered at the time by the Louisville Courier-Journal and WAVE-TV, and the UAL incident in 2017 are all a single event? BlueSalix ( talk) 23:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - If there exists a valid target for Dao, then that is where, at a minimum, this title should default to redirecting with history in tact per WP:CHEAP. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 13:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Kierzek - do you feel the fact he's a World Series of Poker Pro who has won nearly $250K on the poker circuit over the last ten years, that he was convicted of 98 charges of drug trafficking in 2004 in a case covered at the time by the Louisville Courier-Journal and WAVE-TV, and he was the subject of significant media coverage over the UAL incident in 2017 make this a case of BLP1E? BlueSalix ( talk) 23:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply
No. His crimes aren't particularly notable and neither is his poker playing which was only mediocre with him not playing in the Finals or even semi-final games. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies. Kierzek ( talk) 13:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I saw the news reports and thought, "I hope there isn't a Wikipedia article about this guy" so I searched for it. Only notable for one event. There is no overriding public interest (as in , in the interests of the public to be aware of, rather than something the public is interested in for curiosity value) to justify the loss of privacy for this individual. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 22:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to United Airlines Flight 3411, given the notability of the incident, but not the person himself. ( Iuio ( talk) 22:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)) reply
  • Comment Dao received local coverage back in 2005 from the Louisville Courier Journal, after being convicted for drug-related offensives related to his medical practice. It's ultimately how his identity was confirmed. I'm not sure if it's enough to give him his own page, but the guy in one way or another contributed to a billion dollar loss for United - his connection to the whole story seems notable to me. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. And I voted to keep the article on the flight itself. This man deserves privacy. -- Aabicus ( talk) 23:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Arbitrary section break

  • Gamed AfD Unfortunately this AfD was heavily gamed - the specific content that would made this not a BLP1E case was deleted immediately after it was opened [1]. Now that 20 delete !votes have snowballed based on editors reading the "massaged" version of the article, it seems like a Speedy is pre-ordained. And that's how we make sure AfDs go the way we want. BlueSalix ( talk) 23:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Huh? Please stop removing cited material from the article - as you did here [2] - about his World Series of Poker involvement and his criminal convictions that is cited to RS. Deprecatory information is not a BLP issue when cited to multiple RS. Stop gaming the AfD. BlueSalix ( talk) 23:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply
As created, the page has the appearance of an attack page: link. Dao was not notable yesterday, and no one would have thought about creating an article on him except for the UA incident. Thus BIOE1 applies. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Exactly. Binksternet ( talk) 01:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep this is clearly not WP:BIO1E. Dao's drug charges and conviction did receive significant coverage at the time, so he has clearly not only notable for the United Airlines incident. [3] [4] [5] [6] Furthermore, I am in complete agreement with User:BlueSalix, that the removal of information related to his conviction has tainted or gamed this AfD.-- Tdl1060 ( talk) 23:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Per nom - Drdisque ( talk) 23:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Drdisque - to clarify, you feel the fact he's a World Series of Poker Pro who won $117,000 in 2009, he was convicted of 98 charges of drug trafficking in 2004, and he was the subject of significant media coverage over the UAL incident in 2017 qualify as a case of BLP1E? BlueSalix ( talk) 23:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Yes, the first two things come nowhere close to WP:GNG. The fact that he didn't have an article until yesterday speaks to that. - Drdisque ( talk) 03:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep contra nom. -- 24.112.201.254 ( talk) 23:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the crimes aren't particularly notable. Sad to say, but that sort of stuff happens all the time (relatively speaking). $250k in poker over 10 years is more than I've ever made, but for a professional that doesn't seem like he's too good. $25k a year. Unless there are sources from before the United incident that would satisfy GNG this is a clear case of BLP1E. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Actually it was $117,000 in 2009 which should be apparent on even a cursory look at the article, TonyBallioni. BlueSalix ( talk) 23:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply
I read the article. I was addressing your claim above of $250k over 10 year, which averages out to $25k a year. The article clearly claims total lifetime earnings of $234k, and one year where he earned $117k. That sounds like a bad poker player who had a stroke of luck one year, and is hardly a claim to notability. Again, the crimes aren't notable, just something that caused a stir in the local news. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Having a stroke of luck does not disqualify someone from meeting GNG; otherwise there would be many articles (e.g. Jack Whittaker (lottery winner)) that wouldn't exist here. BlueSalix ( talk) 00:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The Wikiproject essay on biographical entries for poker players would disagree with you, and those are normally more generous than the GNG. TonyBallioni ( talk) 00:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
So, epicgenius, you think winning $117K in poker in 2009, being convicted of 98 criminal charges in 2004 in a widely covered case, and the UAL incident, are all a single event? BlueSalix ( talk) 23:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Um, no? If the win was nationally covered in 2009 and he was notable enough, we would have had an article about him. If the case was widely noted, of course we'd have an article about him. But this is the first AFD, so obviously no one has raised the "notability" question before. (There's no deletion logs.) By the way, both events fail WP:NOTABILITY. The poker win, while not unsubstantial, does not stand out much either compared to other wins, and the "wide" coverage from the 2004 charges seems to have all been from the past few days. epicgenius ( talk) 00:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect either to United Airlines Flight 3411 or to United Airlines. He may not be notable enough for his own Article (at least not yet, he could very well be in the future), but he is notable enough for a Redirect. The Mysterious El Willstro ( talk) 23:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect — to United Airlines Flight 3411, an article which I believe should be kept. This man is a minor figure who did not play a part in a very significant event; I think it's notable, but come on. The minor incidents covered here are unconvincing, as they appear to mostly have been significant in one Kentucky newspaper only. There is nothing here that can't be covered in the other article, and it's not particularly lengthy or bursting with coverage that would be undue weight in the aforementioned Flight 3411 article. Also, BlueSalix needs to read WP:STICK and WP:BLUDGEON. Not every opposing argument needs to be pinged and responded to with copy-and-pasted arguments, it's not likely to help your case. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Taylor Trescott as I, and other editors, have noted, there was serious gaming going on with this AfD. My notes are to let editors who !voted on the basis of the gamed version of the article know the mass deletions have been reverted. Editors deserve to make an informed !vote, not a !vote based on a selective presentation of information that one side in an argument has decided to display through selective obfuscation. I hope you agree. BlueSalix ( talk) 00:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
No gaming, just valid concerns about BLP violations. My "delete" vote was based on the fuller version of the biography, the one that made me think it should have been speedily deleted as an attack article. Binksternet ( talk) 00:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
What is the "gamed" version? AusLondonder ( talk) 00:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
I believe that the article creator means this: Unfortunately this AfD was heavily gamed - the specific content that would made this not a BLP1E case was deleted immediately after it was opened [7]. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
So the article creator is actually urging us to judge the more deletable version of the article! AusLondonder ( talk) 01:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep Someone can't keep cropping up in the news every few years over the course of a decade without meeting GNG. BobLaRouche ( talk) 00:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect or failing that Delete. He's essentially only notable because of the United incident. The criminal history seems to have been only of limited local interest at the time. (No, BlueSalix, you don't need to remind me of things you've already written here a dozen times.) Pinkbeast ( talk) 00:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not a notable person, not a public figure, a private individual. Some relevant details about Dr Dao can be placed in the main article on the incident. Ordinary Person ( talk) 00:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If he was notable for his medical career or for his poker career how come we had no article about him until the evening of 11 April 2017? Indeed when one was created it read like a negative attack page. AusLondonder ( talk) 00:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking ( talk) 01:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to United Airlines Flight 3411 per WP:BLP1E. I don't think that having mediocre poker success (I dispute that he placed second in the World Series of Poker in 2009, according to our World Series of Poker article the runner up was Darvin Moon, who won a little over $5 million) and being convicted of felony charges rise anywhere near the standard of notability, as evidenced by the fact that no sources have been presented from the time of those events--they have only been publicized as part of the current media frenzy. So we are left with the single event on the United plane, which is a textbook example of BLP1E. He is receiving media coverage only in the context of this event, he is otherwise a low profile individual (one criminal incident is not notable, and the WSOP article has numbers in the thousands of participants) and even assuming that Flight 3411 is decided to be a significant event I would argue his role is not substantial in it--the long term notability of that article is dependent on its overall effects and coverage of which he is no longer a part. The Wicked Twisted Road ( talk) 01:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
    Comment He didn't come in second place in the WSOP. He came in second place at a circuit championship in Mississippi per The Washington Post (which I corrected in the article with this reference). That definitely lowers the notability on that particular claim. Justeditingtoday ( talk) 01:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
    Comment There are sources from the time of those events, FWIW - local news only. (I don't think they remotely establish notability). The article just happens to use more recent sources. Pinkbeast ( talk) 13:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nuke it from orbit. This is precisely the type of private person about whom we should not have a page, barring further incident. Thanks. Dumuzid ( talk) 01:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and redirect to the article on the flight if that survives AFD, or the main United article if it does not. Agree with others above that this individual does not meet the threshold that would merit a standalone article.-- Danaman5 ( talk) 01:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect the the UAL 3411 article that I believe should be kept. Notability has not been established for this person yet, and his involvement in the event can easily be covered in the other article. Other aspects of his life do not indicate notability as a separate article. -- haha169 ( talk) 03:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:BLP1E. If sources are still covering him after six months then possibly recreate. -- NeilN talk to me 03:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Arbitrary section break

  • Redirect Searching his name should result in a redirect to the flight's wiki page. He is not a notable figure. Just because he was involved in a heavily reported incident doesn't mean he should have his own Wikipedia Page. Thatwweguy 619 ( talk) 03:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per BLP1E. This man is not known for three events, just one. Neither the criminal convictions nor the poker winnings garnered any substantial media attention prior to the airline incident. Someguy1221 ( talk) 03:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into United Airlines Flight 3411. Fatty wawa ( talk) 03:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I hoped that I wouldn't find an article on this poor guy, but Wikipedia is nothing if not predictable. Classic BLP1E. AniMate 04:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Saw this coming from a mile away, Wikipedia is so predictable. Fails GNG. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 04:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - engage the CHECMATE to target this mess. BLP1E. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Obvious Keep as per WP:BIO1E "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Also, media coverage of both the event and the individual's role have grown large and clearly will stay that way for years to come.-- I'm on day 4 ( talk) 04:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
This event is not "highly significant". The Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was highly significant. AusLondonder ( talk) 05:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to United Express Flight 3411 per User:Iuio. Mjroots ( talk) 05:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per BLP1E. This guy is not notable in the slightest apart from the airline incident. -- AmaryllisGardener talk 05:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Obvious redirect per above and WP:BIO1E. ansh 666 05:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Mr. Dao has become famous for one reason: he was brutalized for refusing to get off a plane. Had this awful incident not occurred, Mr. Dao would not have a WP biography, and it strikes me as the classic example of a news story which receives saturation coverage for a few days and is forgotten shortly thereafter. As for prior news coverage of his legal troubles and poker winnings, it isn't sufficient to establish enduring notability for a biography. There's a difference between being a notable individual and merely landing in the news a few times. In particular, I don't see evidence that his past crimes are notable per WP:CRIM, which requires "sustained coverage ... which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." Astro4686 ( talk) 05:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Clearly passes WP:BIO1E which states, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." The fact that there's other coverage of this person for other reasons too means that topic also passes WP:BASIC. Per WP:BEFORE, there are obvious alternatives to deletion and so a deletion discussion is quite inappropriate. Andrew D. ( talk) 07:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I knew someone would attempt to create an article but I am no less stunned and disappointedfor that. Have we learned nothing over the past 16-and-a-bit years? This article is precisely the reason that WP:BLP1E exists. It is not our role as encyclopedia editors to immortalise the pecadilloes of otherwise non-notable people. An administrator with more courage than me should delete this immediately. -- Mattinbgn ( talk) 07:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Just no. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 08:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and WP:BLP1E. No relevant information that cannot be summarized elsewhere. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 08:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. The relevant information about the United Airlines incident must be in United Airlines Flight 3411. The remaining information is not relevant at all. -- Discasto ( talk) 09:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - as per WP:BIO1E "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." User:Brogan lawrence ( User talk:Brogan lawrence) 21:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brogan lawrence ( talk • contribs) — Brogan lawrence ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    Comment I've BOLDLY edited the signature in the above, which was a cut and paste of Blue Salix's signature but actually written by another editor (who has 4 contribs, 2 trivial, this one, and unjustified removal of the AFD notice...) Pinkbeast ( talk) 13:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • delete per nominators rationale-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 10:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to United Express Flight 3411 per WP:BIO1E. Sideways713 ( talk) 11:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (or redirect if deemed possible that the individual will at some point attain genuine general notability in the future) as only know for trivial events- winning at poker, being thrown off a plane- and the sources are insufficently deep in their coverage, mostly being about the events or their after effects rather than the man. — O Fortuna velut luna 12:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. WP:BIO1E. WWGB ( talk) 12:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - WP:BIO1E. Not notable at all. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or create an article on the incident and redirect this to that. One awful incident should not define a private citizen's life and subsequent Google searches forever. ValarianB ( talk) 12:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete 1. Wiki is not a newspaper 2. Haviong bad things happen to you and getting the news is not notable 3. Sustained 4.GNG 5.I removed the poker earning, that is just blatant prooof of non notablity, if arcane stuff is dredged up from sources to make body for the article. 6. Let it snow let it snow let it snow L3X1 (distant write) 12:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Non-notable individual who received coverage simply because of a news event that in itself may not be notable. Trivial events dashed between absolutely no consistent coverage does not help make the article's case. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 13:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Arbitrary section break

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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Dao&oldid=1137768744"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE