Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air West Flight 612

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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 05:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air West Flight 612

Everything that makes the news does not warrant an article in wikipedia Fighting for Justice 19:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep big airliner hijacking - inherintly notable. Plenty of independant, non-trivial sources as per
WP:N. Also, Turkish Airlines Flight 1476, a similar incident, managed to reach GA status. Wanna delete that, too? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Well sourced and notable. -
BillCJ 19:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Is a good article, well sourced. There are not enough attempted highjackings (fortunatly) that having an article on each would be a problem. See no reason to delete. Davewild 19:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, true, not every news story deserves an encyclopedia article, but major aviation events like this do. It is widely covered in reputable media, so it fully meets all the notability and verifiability criteria. Akradecki 23:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that it happened over Africa does not diminish its significance. If this incident happened over America, it would be covered by the media frantically. KyuuA4 01:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A major aviation event like this????? Are you kidding me??? This incident barely made a ripple in the news media. I'll even go one step further and will say it's not a hijacking. It seems more like a single unruly passenger. A real hijacking was TWA Flight 847, Air France Flight 8969, and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961. I only discovered this incident happened TODAY, and I read all the major American and Canadian newspapers. I never heard about it until now. This incident belongs in wikinews, not encyclopedia. This furthers my belief that wikipedia is not a serious encyclopedia. It's no wonder high school teachers are now telling their students to NOT rely on wikipedia for information. Everything that makes the news receives an article around here. It really does and that's sad because, at one time, wikipedia did have the potential of being a good encyclopedia. That is until every minor news event got an article. Why did they even create wikinews if incidents like this get articles? Fighting for Justice 04:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then compare with

JetBlue Airways Flight 292. This incident involved a LANDING GEAR that could not be retracted. It's "significant" because the news media surrounded it. KyuuA4 07:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Woah, let's take it down a notch. First, look at the refs. Yes, there's a U.S. major news source (NBC), but most of the sources are non-U.S. and the way you've put it, "I read all the major American and Canadian newspapers" is is quite American-centric (apologies to our Canuck neigbors). There's more to life, the universe and everything than the U.S. and Canadian newspapers. Some events that happen in other countries only get covered in other countries. Does that make them any less notable? Are you saying that the only things that are truly encyclopedic are those which happen in the U.S. or which get major coverage in the U.S.? This is a world wide project. You have some of the leading editors in both the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation and Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management telling you in this AfD that such an article is notable...so you might want to step back and ask yourself why. Maybe there's an aspect of this that you hadn't considered. I have no problem with your nomination of the article, but when a unanimous chorus of "keep" result, a wise person would consider that maybe what makes this encyclopedia a quality work is that we do cover more than just what happens in the U.S., rather than railing and feeling so sad that somehow completeness of coverage denegrates Wikipedia. If you want really limited coverage, go read World Book. Otherwise, stay, join our projects, and help us cover all of the notable events, no matter where in the world they happen. Akradecki 04:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is not that the incident happened far, far, far away from North America. The three hijacking incidents, I mention, above happened far from North America. I got no problems with them because very serious things unfolded in all three of them. This incident looks like nothing compared to them. What happened is not notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. I can concede that it is news, as hijacking is not a everyday occurrence, however, this incident was resolved quickly. It belongs in wikinews. No, I'm not looking for limited coverage. I'm looking for an encyclopedia that really is one not pretending to be one as wikipedia is sadly looking like. If I wanted to read about something in Africa I can read up on international news from their area. Fighting for Justice 06:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If I wanted to read about something in Africa I can read up on international news from their area." Yet you complained earlier that you read American and Canadian news, yet have never heard of it. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate you trying to twist my words. Canadian and American medias don't just cover events in North America. Fighting for Justice 06:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not deliberatly trying to twist your words - that's simply how I read it. Y'know, we're both getting pretty p****d off with each other, maybe we should both just give up and see how the rest of the nomination goes. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Words were not twisted. They were quoted. Though I must ask, what's a "real hijacking" as opposed to a "fake one"? KyuuA4 07:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reading this article shows that it was far more serious than a 'single unruly passenger'. I don't see anyone saying that anything about the USA which doesn't make the papers in Chad should be deleted. Nick mallory 15:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The hijacking of a major airliner is not non-notable. Ben W Bell talk 18:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reasonably well-referenced sources demonstrate notability, and this was definitely more than an unruly passenger, even if it was less than some of the all-time-major hijackings. --Dhartung | Talk 19:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Well sourced and notable. – Zntrip 01:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. All hijacking and terrorist incidents involving passenger airliners are notable per Wikipedia precedent, not just those that get mentioned in US newspapers. This is the kind of article we should have on Wikipedia. --Charlene 02:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep despite the personal
WP:BIAS held by nominator, the topic is worthy of note for our encyclopedia. RFerreira 05:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep and someone please
WP:SNOW close this. Georgewilliamherbert 23:14, 9 May 2007 (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.