Talk:Stockton Rush/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Stockton Rush. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Status

CLOSED

AfC was promoted to main space. BLP1E arguments were resolved at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stockton Rush with a snow keep. Closing this conversation; it's a good time to drop the WP:STICK. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 11:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved

I'd support a move into main space for further expansion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Bummer, I see User:Sionk has rejected submission. User:Thriley, do you support a move into main space? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I am very sure the article would survive if nominated for deletion. Thriley (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd move the entry into main space myself, but there's a technical restriction. Hopefully someone else can moved the page over the redirect sooner than later. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Should never have been done. See WP:BLP1E. In future, please respect the outcome of AFC reviews.T v x1 23:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Please, I'm clearly not alone in my thinking. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Neither are the people thinking it shouldn’t have been moved alone in their thinking. So that argument is pointless. Please respect the AFC process and their reviewers in future. You just din’t go and ignore an AFC decline because you don’t like it.T v x1 06:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

You were replying to every comment on the AFC, relentlessly arguing against them. If that's respecting the AFC process, well, we have different definitions of respect. 92.22.127.50 (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

That was AfD, not AfC. WP:AFC is Articles for creation or AfC, while WP:AFD is Articles for deletion or AfD.

User:Sionk reviewed the AfC nomination and declined to have this article be moved to the mainspace in this edit for good reasons. (If I had known this was going to happen, I would have listed those sources in the reflist above on a relevant talk page for people to be aware of them much sooner as I had been holding onto them for a few days.) Another Believer and Thriley were able to get the article mainspaced, but that led Tvx1 to submit an AfD proposal to remove the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

BLP1E says that each condition has to be met. As far as I can tell, the first condition is not met and therefore BLP1E cannot apply regardless of the status of the other conditions. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

That’s an incorrect assessment of yours. They are all met.T v x1 06:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

BLP1E's 1st condition: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. The 2023 Titan submersible incident is the single event, therefore sources directly about the event cannot be used. While that nullifies most sources from this year, it fails to nullify any of the fifteen sources that I added to this talk page. All of these are clearly published before 2023, with the exception of the iHeart podcast as it recently was re-published from a 2022 interview. Excluding the Elite Traveler source as well, that leaves thirteen sources about Rush that are not about the single event. The first condition does not appear to be met. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

An none of these other sources anything that remotely is an encyclopaedic achievement. All things that tens of thousands of people in this world have done. T v x1 12:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

“An none of these other sources anything that remotely is an encyclopaedic achievement. All things that tens of thousands of people in this world have done.” I think you have a few typos in this. And do you mean that tens of thousands of people have founded a submersible company?

And by the looks of it I believe Mr Rush should have had a page before this event, I have seen quite a few pages about persons that haven’t been half as “notable” as Rush was before this unfortunate incident. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

No, but tens of thousands have founded a company. And nonethless plenty have founded a submarine company. It’s not remotely as special as you portray it to be.T v x1 11:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, we do not seem to yet have Category:Founders of submarine companies. Could you possibly enlighten us on how many "plenty" is? Category:Founders of the petroleum industry has 37 members. Is that "plenty"? 86.187.234.53 (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

We are in disagreement about that then, but at least we are at the heart of the issue. In any case, I will drop this for now and await the second AfD. If you would, please ping me when that occurs. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No good reason to delete

CLOSED

The proper venue for discussing page deletion was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stockton Rush, which has closed with a snow keep. As above, closing and encouraging everyone to drop the WP:STICK. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 11:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is a man who plays a huge role in a now forever infamous event. This page gives information regarding him, as a Wikipedia reader and enjoyer I don’t understand why you would delete. 2A02:C7C:9807:7E00:FCBF:BF2C:B35A:DD98 (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

No it doesn’t. We don’t have articles on people (in)famous for just one event.T v x1 06:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean the WP:BLP1E page has an example of a page that contradicts that claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hinckley_Jr. 92.22.127.50 (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Rush played a major role in an event that may very well completely reshape deep sea exploration. When people think of deep sea exploration, at least for the foreseeable future, they are going to think of this tragic event. I believe this article should remain. TheMrTropical (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Nothing but pure hypothesis. T v x1 12:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems the wikipedia community has already decided to keep the article. Tvx1 you're beating a dead submersible, move on; your time will be better spent somewhere else. 108.162.30.114 (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I don’t need to be lectured by ayone here.T v x1 16:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

People disagreeing with you isn't "lecturing", it's disagreeing. 92.22.127.50 (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Being told what to do and what not is lecturing, not disagreeing.T v x1 10:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Tvx1 your are as blinkered to other viewpoints as Stockon Rush was. 2001:8B0:476:B7C0:FC14:389E:E7D7:68 (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.