Talk:Sleeping while on duty

Citation

I am looking for a citation for the story in Pittsburgh. I remember seeing it on the news when it was broadcast. It would be helpful if anyone familiar with the story could provide a reference and possibly additional useful information. Hellno2 (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In popular culture

Homer Simpson used to sleep on duty 89.77.118.185 (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• This would be good if a listing of sleeping while on duty in fiction section were to be added to this article. To add such a section, I would recommend that at least 1-2 other stories with references be added. Hellno2 (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

tags and deletion

I support deletion. There were tags on this page but they were removed. This page has existed for over a year and it's a dictionary entry with some news articles added. If it was going to be any more than it is now it already would be. Adding some links to a couple questionable studies is not enough by itself to make an article notable. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree: This article has plenty of sources, and if sent to afd, would result in almost unanimous keeps. Even if the sources provided may not be enough, there are plenty more out there that would support it. Hellno2 (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This article does have plenty of sources, but they aren't good sources; a few news articles and a sleep study by a company that makes matresses is not enough to make a subject notable. If there are plenty of other sources then where are they? This article has been here for over a year and there is very little substance to it. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a news aggregator and that's all this article amounts to. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It is true this article may not be perfect. But there is no guideline saying Wikipedia need to be perfect. The bottom line is this article does not meet any of the criteria for deletion under Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion. Therefore, there will be no way an AfD will successfully get it deleted, so putting it up for AfD is an example of WP:POINT and WP:ZEAL. Hellno2 (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

First, I did not put this article up for afd so do not accuse me of anything. Second this article is boarderline notable, and as I noted earlier probably violates wp:not, particularly wikipedia is not a dictionary, a news aggregator or an indescriminate collection of information wp:not#news; which are reasons an article can be nominated for deletion. This article is far from perfect and I think there are enough problems to warrent a deletion discussion. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of doing anything, only explaining why I believe using the AfD process is a terrible idea here. Instead, if you think it has certain issues, the better thing to do is to place appropriate tags in the article.

As always, the objective is to improve rather than to destroy the encyclopedia. Per WP:BEFORE and other guidelines, it would be better to discuss the problems this article has right here and ways to improve it, rather than putting it up for deletion, which will most likely just generate reasons why this article should be kept. Also, there is no deadline for this article to be improved; there is no minimum number of edits an article must have in order to remain. Even if it sits several more years with little or no change, that is not grounds for deletion.

I do not agree this is a dictionary entry, for it is not just a one-line entry; it is several paragraphs about an entire social concept. You would not find this in a dictionary. And WP:NOTNEWS frowns upon creating articles about single news events, particularly a more recent one, and is not opposed to mentioning news stories pertaining to a subject within articles on that subject.

I admit that one time when I was relatively new, I used the AfD process on an article that obviously belonged and at worst had a lot of issues. I thought that the article would surely be kept, and the AfD would bring a lot of new people in to improve it. Was I wrong. Truth was, only around 5-6 people commented, all saying keep. But none gave any suggestions to improve the article or even mentioned that it had any problems. I learned my lesson from that. Hellno2 (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

The blurb about a parlimentarian sleeping in an EU Parliment session is just WT:TRIVIA. This is a minor news event of relativley little importance, regardless of news coverage received, which is apparently not much to begin with. I'm sure hundreds of news reports could be listed of people falling asleep on duty, and this seems no different. This trivial event has no comparision serious incidents in which people were put in harm's way. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the deletion and agree that it doesn't belong here. Parliamentarians and other desk workers falling asleep at work are not the subject of this article, airline pilots, equipment operators and other similar professions are. - Ahunt (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

While frowned upon, this is not a big deal in some jobs.

If you fall asleep in a white collar job, say as a junior employee, you'll probably get made fun of for the rest of your career, but you won't lose your job or even get written up. Lulaq (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

OR tagging

This article was recently tagged for WP:OR, but some explanation of where the problem lies is needed. Most of the text is referenced. - Ahunt (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)