Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Canada Flight 018 Stowaway Incident

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 keep. Comments since the relist show a consensus that there is sufficient coverage of this incident to make it notable. RL0919 (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Air Canada Flight 018 Stowaway Incident

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Hardly noteworthy for a mention in Wikipedia and certainly not noteworthy for a stand-alone article. Wikipedia is not a place for trivial news stories. Contested PROD MilborneOne (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For a Canadian incident, the sources include international (Japan, U.S., Australia). Notability is established. XavierItzm (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 03:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – 'Trivial news story' is a good description. Is there any sign of enduring coverage either? --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - classic case of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Trivial incident, no lasting effects. The news media covered it for its novelty, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 14:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After revisiting the article, I have come to the conclusion that it should be included. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 12:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I performed some cleanup of the article - and added sections and WP:RSs. Outcome of arrests and Mr. X. The incident was international WP:GEOSCOPE reported in the press around the world, and even necessitated a Terror alert from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Notability is not temporary and this incident is notable. Lightburst (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have reviewed you changes and, while that has improved the article and is appreciated, it has not changed the basic issue that the story behind it is WP:NOTNEWS. We are in "cat stuck in tree - rescued by fire dept" territory here. Sure it made the newspapers, it still doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting perspective. This incident uncovered an international smuggling ring and produced 8 arrests and at least one conviction (3 year sentence) along with worldwide coverage and Terror alerts for customs around the world: but you compare this to a cat in a tree? Sigh... Of course I disagree. Lightburst (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahunt: I have added WP:SIGCOV and the disposition of the convicted. Lightburst (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Coomment stuffing the article with citations still doesnt indicate significant courage, it still looks like a local new story with little effect or coverage in the rest of the world. MilborneOne (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, fails WP:GNG. -- Begoon 20:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Begoon: You are right that we are not the news. This particular incident had international coverage and necessitated airline changes around the world. Lightburst (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have read the article and believe it is a notable case because its the first of its kind, and it causes them to reveal their airport security. This has revealed a security threat as anyone can impersonate someone else wearing one of these masks. Dream Focus 06:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, this was a noteworthy event. I am basing my vote primarily on the significant coverage of this event by South China Morning Post and Associated Press. !Vote by User:BehindtheKeys - the !vote is on the bottom of the article so I moved it here for the editor.
Keep per persuasive arguments by Lightburst. Pithy delete !votes citing WP:NOTNEWS without elaboration are not persuasive. ~Kvng (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- COmment Presumable because anybody reading the article would see the NOTNEWS angle fairly clearly so doesnt really need elaboration of the obvious. Clearly not noteworthy for a standalone article despite the citation stuffing. MilborneOne (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MilborneOne: "Citation stuffing" is a baseless claim which tells me you did not look at the article. WP:HEY. It is quite obvious to the readers that the added citations were for information regarding:

The stowaway Incident
The 8 arrests
The conviction of a conspirator
The placement of MR. X (apparent asylum)
The DHS terror alert.
The worldwide Air Bulletin warnings

I am saddened by the WP:RUSH to delete rather than improve WP:NOTCLEANUP. We have a case of WP:GEOSCOPE based on the WP:RSs. The article is now worthy of inclusion. Lightburst (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict]

@MilborneOne: Lightburst and others have made some very respectable improvements to the article since you nominated it and your position is that this is citation stuffing? SMH. ~Kvng (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please assume good faith in others, saying that others "clearly did not read the article" is not clever and probably worth an apology. MilborneOne (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a trivial newspaper story that is not worthy of a stand alone article in an encyclopedia. - Samf4u (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Due to expansions made since the original nomination. Whoever ends up closing this should also keep in mind the improvement that was made to the article over the course of the deletion discussion.Patiodweller (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after a "keep" closure per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 October 23.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments of Kvng and User:Patiodweller WP:Hey. This is NOT the article it was when the WP:AFD was initiated. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor NEWS event without lasting coverage or significance. Reywas92^Talk 17:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - having reviewed the now-rewritten article, I still contend that this is just a WP:NOTNEWS event, not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Routine, dime-a-dozen crime, regardless of the DHS overreaction. Not on a par with the Essex lorry deaths. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to reiterate the delete !vote I cast above before more sources had been added to the article - in spite of the WP:HEY, this still fails WP:NOTNEWS (minor spattering of coverage around the time of the incident, minor spattering of coverage around the time of conviction). It's not enduringly notable. SportingFlyer T·C 00:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is silly and a waste of bytes, but I will play too. I want to reiterate the Keep !vote I cast above. We are all now aware of the delete !vote by SportingFlyer above (twice) and the subsequent deletion review started by SportingFlyer, which overturned the Keep AfD result based on this article's improvements. Perhaps we can get some Encyclopedia building work done soon. :) Lightburst (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The number of major newspapers reporting on this incident can't be ignored so easily. Furthermore, I would say that the worldwide GEOSCOPE coverage puts it over the top. Hko2333 (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – There's enough international coverage over a long-enough period of time to convince me that we have sufficient WP:RS coverage out there to write a stand-alone article about it. E.g., Reuters 2010, The Economist 2010, CNN 2010, Time 2010, Telegraph (UK) Jan 2011, AP (via NBC) Feb 2011, AFP (via News.com.au) Oct 2011, Telegraph (UK) again Oct 2011, AP (via Sify) again Oct 2011, McFarland book 2014, The Standard (HK) 2019. – Levivich 02:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTNEWS is just supposed to keep out routine stuff like the daily weather or celebrity gossip but this is different – an unusual and high-impact event which was widely reported internationally by respectable and substantial media. Notability does not expire and so we're good. Andrew D. (talk) 11:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG easily. discussion seems to revolve around NOTNEWS and similar. Issues 1, 3, and 4 of NOTNEWS obviously don't apply. Issue 2, which is basically saying "needs SIGCOV, not routine", I believe is satisfied/dealt with by the large number of sources reporting on it in detail. and seriously, everyone needs to chill. Hydromania (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.