Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hernandez Jr.

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 merge to 2011 Tucson shooting. There is clear consensus that this article should not be left as a standalone article. However, consensus is also that some of the content should be added to the article about the shooting. From here, it's an editorial decision on what to keep and what not to, but the end result should be "redirect" unless there is some later consensus to split the article out again. NW (Talk) 17:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Hernandez Jr.

Daniel Hernandez Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Time has passed. Days have gone on. Coverage of the Tucson shooting is over (until the trial, or the congresswoman recovers). This individual has faded not quite into obscurity necessarily, but into a territory where I believe there should be consensus that he indeed fails WP:BLP1E (or doesn't meet WP:GNG because of BLP1E, however you prefer to phrase it). – Muboshgu (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess the automated process didn't find the first AfD because of the name change, but for easy reference, it is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hernandez (intern). – Muboshgu (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect to 2011 Tucson shooting - Mandsford said it best; “…a redirect is consistent with the essay at WP:1E, where persons famous for one event still get the "honor" (to the extent that having an article on Wikipedia is an honor of some sort) of having their name as a search term”. As there is no references, at this time. of this person except in the context of the event, a redirect is appropriate. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to 2011 Tucson shooting per Cirt. --Goobergunch|? 18:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

  Comment – I have moved the pertinent information over to the 2011 Tucson shooting, under Target of the attack. It fits well with the piece. If the closing Adm will let me know when this AFD closes, and the consensus is to merge and redirect, I’ll be happy to put the redirect into place. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 02:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect to 2011 Tucson shooting now as the information has been merged. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect I have little doubt that this young man will soon do something notable enough to deserve an article of his own. But for the nonce, Shoe's changes to the parent article are fine. PhGustaf (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2011 Tucson shooting. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 18:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - or procedural keep if you prefer - this is still too soon after the original debate, and the persons who participated in the original debate have not been notififed. Bearian (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I did stick a note on the talk page of 2011 Tucson shooting, and I will have put notices on the individual users' talk pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect or delete - it has been a while and no new information has emerged. This page is a small orphan and gets a relatively humble number of views as it is. - Haymaker (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep This individual has received wide coverage on Time, the New York Times and CNN. I thought this had been discussed before and the consensus was to keep it. Why is it being nominated again? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • First discussion was closed as no consensus. I thought enough time had passed to reevaluate. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete but I'd settle for redirect if necessary. My opinion hasn't changed since the last time. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - Only in the news for one thing, remains a fairly low-profile individual, and has not gone on to the proverbial "second act", e.g. Joe the Plumber, that elevates one beyond simple notability for act #1. Being mentioned in an occasional reliable source or two for giving talks or interviews about event #1 doesn't cut it. If SPAs and empty "per user X" keeps had been properly invalidated in AfD #1, we wouldn't need to be here for round 2 anyways. Tarc (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Lionel (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2011 Tucson shooting. Clear case of WP:BLP1E. He was not notable for anything before the shooting, nor anything after besides his role in the shooting. —SW— ^confess 21:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect the very basic details to 2011 Tucson shooting for now. Continuing coverage of the single event is not a separate event, and he remains, for the time being, just a part of that event. The news cycle and media feeding frenzy for the Tucson shooting have ended and no further information is expected until the trial, so I wholly disagree that it's "too soon." SDY (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2011 Tucson shooting. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to 2011 Tucson shooting per WP:BLP1E. This is not, nor has it ever been, a major enough event to sustain an independent article on Hernandez, although he is a hero. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep and re-evaluate in 6 months - only 6 weeks since the same action was closed as no consensus - why are we rushing again to delete? Is there some emergency that requires immediate action? The normal procedure is to wait a while - and that's not 6 weeks - to see what happens, not rush to re-nominate when people think this was settled This is a well-sourced article, on a person whose actions and background received a lot of world-wide attention - far more and better sourcing than many, many, many articles here. The main article on the shooting can't support adding details about Hernandez's background, but they are notable based on his age and position. This is right place for them. The parallels to Chesley Sullenberger and Oliver Sipple mentioned in the previous nomination are well-taken - both "one event" individuals, who should and do have articles in Wikipedia. Tvoz/talk 18:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

  Those two attained notability for other things, though. Sullenberger is a noted author and contributor to airline safety discussions, while Sipple had all the stuff regarding his homosexuality, the lawsuits, the Harvey Milk connections. This guy's notability has dropped down to the "where are they now?" kind of news stories. No second act. Tarc (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sullenberger's book was about his one event, and we all know why his article was created and that he never would have had one without the event, despite his distinguished record prior to it. Sipple's notability obviously was Ford-related - and also after and as a result of the one event. I'm arguing for a reasonable amount of time to pass before considering this - rather than the whiff of "I didn't like the original outcome" that I'm getting. I'm not directing this comment to any one individual here in particular, just the sense of it. What's the rush if not to undo the previous action, which is really not appropriate. Tvoz/talk 19:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sipple's fame was Ford-related, but he is not remembered for fame, he is remembered for infamy, for the inappropriate treatment he received despite his heroics. That notoriety is why Sipple is notable outside of the assassination attempt. Sullenberger is probably a better comparison, but honestly that's probably not going to change the outcome as far as this specific discussion is concerned. I'd probably spit up Nadya Suleman as another reasonable comparison of a "one event" individual who also has an article. As for "appropriate" this article is not consistent with WP:BLP1E, and while that's not ironclad by any means many editors are trying to reconcile the discrepancy between established thinking and this article. SDY (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, BLP1E states "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." He's a teenage gay Mexican-American who saved the life of a US politician in a very high-profile event. He is also an activist. He is already being honored as a teen, as a gay American, as a Mexican-American and as an American hero. His case story has already been contrasted with that of Oliver Sipple. Here are some great sourcing that can help;
  • [1]
  • [2]
  • [3]
  • [4]
  • [5]
  • [6]
  • [7] PBS Newshour coverage
  • [8]
  • [9]

The comparisons to Sipple is that of a gay American hero. Sipple was not an activist where Hernandez is and he is certain to get even more attention. Also this case brings up many interesting contrasts; the gay angle when marriage is such a hotbutton issue, being Mexican-American in a state known for anti-immigration laws and that he's so young and yet openly gay. BLP1E warns to not focus bringing embarrassment to someone known for only one event, not for being a national hero. This is a human interest story that has already become front page news in the Spanish-language media as well as the Gay media and the above links talk about the person beyond the event. "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." (see Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low_profile_individual#Media_attention) Human interest stories are what attract a readership to a media outlet. I wouldn't even have heard about this guy if the angles on him were presented as dry facts. They weren't, the LGBT press talks about his activism and speculates about his political career. The Spanish-language media takes a different spin about the Mexican-American hero. Etc. It is the job of the media workers to take a story and highlight the human interest aspects to attract humans to their brand. Possibly Hernandez is only mentioned in a fraction of the coverage about the entire event but that's because he was not the focus of the entire event. A lot of mainstream Time, CNN, PBS, NPR, Fox, LA Times, etc. Here's a few more; "ARIZONA SHOOTING: Daniel Hernandez goes from Giffords' intern to world hero"[10], "Giffords intern handling sudden fame after speech", By TERRY TANG,Associated Press,[11], here's a passage,

"Since Wednesday night, Hernandez has given more than 200 interviews. Trying to walk into the medical center where Giffords is hospitalized or anywhere else, he is surrounded by throngs of well-wishers. Before the memorial, the biggest group Hernandez had ever addressed was about 30 people. "And even that I think is a bit of a stretch," Hernandez told The Associated Press. Hernandez said the whole event still seems unreal. He can't even remember exactly what he said Wedneday night. "I ended up throwing away the speech I was going to be giving moments before I went up on stage. I think it's really disingenuous to be doing anything other than speaking from the heart." Hernandez had been an intern with Giffords' office for all of five days when the shooting happened at a district meet-and-greet outside a supermarket. He also volunteered as a teenager for her 2008 congressional campaign.

Born in Tucson to parents of Mexican heritage, Hernandez grew up the oldest of three children. His parents taught him and his two sisters from a young age to give back. "My mom is like that. She has a big heart," younger sister Alma Hernandez said. "My dad always thinks about the community. He always wants to do better. He always told us we have to always go back to our community where we came from to help out." Their father is retired and their mother has a side business baking cakes. Hernandez's talent for public speaking was developed in high school, where he participated in academic decathlons, Junior Honor Society and student council. Besides interning for Giffords, Hernandez was appointed as a commissioner at large to the City of Tucson Commission on Gay, Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Issues. He plans to help the organization with education outreach on issues such as bullying.

C. Michael Woodward, co-chair of the commission, said Hernandez had a resume bigger than some candidates twice his age. "It was pretty clear he was a mover and a shaker long before any of this happened," Woodward said. "The real heroes are the ones who dedicate themselves to public service but that's what he's planning to do anyway. He just got his hero badge early.""

Here's a whole column noting his being Mexican-American, "What If Daniel Hernandez Was Undocumented?"[12]

And a couple talking about the gay aspects, "Grace Under Fire"[13] notes the comparison to Mark Bingham, "Does Sen. John McCain Owe Gay Servicemen an Apology?"[14] delves into the loaded language and differing standards the US has for those who are openly gay. So there are plenty of sources that talk about Hernandez in depth and as a unique aspect to a huge tragic event where this material would likely not be as useful. And after 200 interviews BLP1E cannot apply, after dozens and dozens of media interviews, many covering background information on him having nothing to do with the event itself it would seem he has surpassed any concerns of notability and verifiability.

Hernandez is an activist already active in politics, 1 event is about keeping embarrassing/humiliating events in check, this is an American hero with many interesting twists. Additionally he is continuing to be very public and sources are noting this;

Daniel Hernandez, Jr.—the openly gay intern who is credited with helping to save the life of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in a January mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz.—will speak at a Feb. 19 luncheon at the 29th Annual National Conference of the United States Hispanic Leadership Institute (USHLI). - FEB 16[15][16] and [17] (covers the honor award).

Hernandez running for UA student post - MARCH 8; [18]

Sunnyside schools honors Giffords intern Daniel Hernandez - FEB 26 / MARCH 1[19]

AU students hone leadership skills at national conference - MARCH 3[20]

Ticket sales brisk for benefit concert (Hernandez is one of the speakers) - MARCH 8 - [21]

I copied the top part from the other deletion discussion in January because it says everything I wanted to, and then I did a quick search to see what is being said recently and found two high profile public speaches as well as TV news coverage. I also agree with the idea above that there is likely a lot of Spanish-language material, although someone who can interpret these to see which are the best is needed.[22]

I hope this may help those suggesting that 1 Event applies here, or that there aren't enough sources about him, can reevaluate. The sources above talk about Hernandez himself, in school, his potential political career and aspirations. There is plenty of material here even if it hasn't been meshed into the article yet. Two months from the date and he is still getting awards and high profile public notice. I certainly hope an article on him wouldn't be deleted, if it is I wonder who else gets this much public recognition for heroism on every level of the political spectrum, gives hundreds of interviews, is an activist giving speeches and getting awards, etc. yet somehow is deemed irrelevant or simply a footnote.Wookiebookie (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

A lot of words there. None it really addresses the fact that he has only done one thing to be notable, though. Everyone does the lecture circuit after their 15 minutes of fame comes in, that's nothing special. Tarc (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I might not have expressed it well (sorry), however I was refuting the same point as was discussed two months ago. BLP1E states "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." This is not a low-profile individual and it seems quite likely that he is not interested in shooing away the media at all. 1 event also states "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." I believe, as apparently many others do, that his role in avery high profile event was significant and as the Representative gets better, Hernandez will be brought up again and again as a hero. So we have tons of sources and the 1 event rule doesn't seem to hold water here.Wookiebookie (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)``

• Merge/redirect. Strangely enough, I agree with the above argument that he doesn't fall under WP:BLP1E, since he couldn't really be regarded as low-profile. However, he does come under the loosely related guideline WP:ONEVENT. Every piece of coverage found so far is explicitly about his role in that event, rather than really being about Hernandez himself, despite the inclusion of some biographical information. Maybe he'll become more notable in the future, but not right now. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

From WP:ONEVENT - If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. Hernandez is only two months into this and the hero worship does not seem to be ebbing.

I dispute that this event is "highly significant." It didn't even succeed in killing the primary target (who is in the grand scheme of the hierarchy of the government of the United States not that important, there are hundreds of people in Congress), there was no sinister motivation, just a crazy guy, and it's not like it started World War I. SDY (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

In addition, I dispute that his "hero worship does not seem to be ebbing." A Google News search doesn't indicate ongoing "hero worship", even though he is running for student body president at UA. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course this attempted assassination is a significant event, assassinations in the US historically always are - especially for a US Representative. This was the major news story for weeks and her recovery is given new life to the story. And the ongoing hero accolades have continued along with being a featured speaker at major events. As he continues to be a public figure and honored. And as he is running for a student office his role as a hero in the face of gun violence has made that a notable issue in that campaign. How many hundreds of interviews does the guy need to do? How many stories about him have to be written?Wookiebookie (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

In the era of 24 hour news desperate for anything to talk about, persistent news coverage isn't really much of an indicator of anything. See Missing White Woman Syndrome. The Tucson event was major news for what it might have been (i.e. political dissent causing actual violence, or an echo of the still very fresh Salman Taseer assassination) rather than what it ended up being (a failure of BATFE to keep guns out of the hands of a man who was not supposed to have them). Hernandez is fun to write about because he might have a brilliant future ahead, especially for people who want to promote him since he simultaneously represents several groups that just don't get treated that well in American life and it'd be great if he got into politics, but in the end it's just a human interest story (or news agencies attempting to create a story instead of just reporting it, which is a bit sinister in my book), but Wikipedia is clearly not chasing an audience and is not a tool for social change. Hernandez was not the only hero that day, and singling him out as super-important, even if it is popular to do so, is problematic. SDY (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Completely disagree with you (sorry). The media singled him out as the emerging hero of the story so to not follow what reliable sources state would be the wrong thing to do. An why would anyone write, ;et alone read anything? Because they are human beings and their stories interest us. And no activism is going on at all, his article barely mentions his activism or views, but probably should note his opinions. And the point about him being active politically is that the 1 event peanut gallery keeps bringing that up despite evidence it doesn't hold. There is plenty of sources and having an article on Hernandez is not singling him out as much as covering a notable person who rose to fame as the emerging hero in a national tragedy. Devoting exactly one sentence to him in the main article is what violates any balance.Wookiebookie (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - He's a one event guy. Keeping the article because he has potential to do more is wishful thinking (right now).Mattnad (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

C. Michael Woodward, co-chair of the commission, said Hernandez had a resume bigger than some candidates twice his age. "It was pretty clear he was a mover and a shaker long before any of this happened," Woodward said. "The real heroes are the ones who dedicate themselves to public service but that's what he's planning to do anyway. He just got his hero badge early.""

• Delete if this article isn't deleted, then WP:BLP1E needs to be deprecated. -Atmoz (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect, makes it easier to keep the article history. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - I think it is to early for a second Afd nomination. Also not anything new that makes me less sure of this persons notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

  Invalidated by WP:NOTAGAIN. Cheers. Tarc (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, you are quite humoristic actually you are invalidating your own invalidation by WP:NOTAGAIN per your many many many attempts to discredit other users opinions. cheers--BabbaQ (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC).

Tarc's argument is perfectly valid. WP:TOOSOON basically says that saying a renomination is inappropriate because of past outcomes is not, in and of itself, a helpful addition to the discussion. This is especially true when the previous outcome was "no consensus." SDY (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I second that as the nominator; I would have been less likely, perhaps unlikely, to have renominated this page if it had been a 'keep'. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ofcourse you do Muboshgu, ofcouse you do .. as the nominator...hmmm.. go figures...*laugh*

Consensus can change. In this case, a lack of consensus can change to a consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• No Tarc comment its not valid per WP:NOTAGAIN.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

  Um, what? I'm sorry, but do you actually comprehend what WP:NOTAGAIN means? Your call to "keep" this article was based on it being "to[sic] early for a second Afd nomination". I pointed you to WP:NOTAGAIN...granted, just an essay...that notes that "too soon" is not very highly-regarded as a reason to keep an article. How on earth does that apply to my comment to you? Tarc (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: NOTAGAIN - in this case 6/7 weeks after the last deletion discussion - states This argument is a good argument in some circumstances but a bad argument in others. An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion; after all, consensus can change. If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination. If an article was kept because it is potentially encyclopedic and can be improved or expanded, one should allow time for editors to improve it. Therefore, it is appropriate for editors to oppose a re-nomination that does not give enough time to improve the article. So NOTAGAIN would support BabbaQ's position. There are plenty of news articles about him, not all focus just on the event. And his role in the event was considered significant enough by the US President, The Governor and numerous news writers. If the national news singled you out as a hero in addition the President singled you out, when those don't happen very often, I would expect to see a decent article on the hero and not just a fastforward to the event article which probably should not carry all the notable information about Hernandez.Wookiebookie (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - Passes WP:GNG. The sources in the article and those found by Wookiebookie support notability. Onthegogo (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect. A very clear case of BLP1E. It's true that an aspiring civil rights activist who suddenly finds himself called a "hero" by the President may be a reasonable bet for independent notability in the future. But, per WP:BALL, that is not a valid basis for a "keep" vote. --FormerIP (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Merge (or delete) and redirect to 2011 Tucson shooting. This is clearly a one event BLP.Griswaldo (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2011 (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.