Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 New York City airplane scare

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. This is a tough call, so I'll invoke admin discretion. The incident likely goes beyond WP:NOT#NEWS, though we'll be unable to tell for sure until at least a few weeks elapse. Merging is a valid idea; however, since there are so many relevant articles, I feel it's better to keep it as a separate page. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 New York City airplane scare

2009 New York City airplane scare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
(since moved to Air Force One photo op controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Extremely short article about an event which will likely not gain any more attention. Not much chance of being encyclopedic. RadioFan (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 New York plane scare
    I've closed the above noted AFD, it had very little chance being so underdeveloped. This particular article is a better point of discussion, being more fleshed out, with sources and the like. For transparency, it should be noted that a link to this particular AFD was made there. –xeno talk 23:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with 9/11: As I commented at the talk page, this really belongs as a section of 9/11#Long-term effects called "Psychological effects". Its a notable occurrence in terms of the after-effects of the WTC attack (i.e. people's response to a low-flying plane), but not "long-lasting notable" enough for an article of its own. –xeno talk 23:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made an initial attempt at 9/11#Psychological effects. –xeno talk 16:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you xeno. Cordovao (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect title to US Airways Flight 1549, the real NYC airplane scare of 2009, so far anyway. The event the article describes now was only temporarily notable, the notability guideline addresses exactly this sort of event and it is clearly excluded. Drawn Some (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable; it was just a slow news day. Tempshill (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable Splette :) How's my driving? 23:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with September 11 attacks#Long-term effects and avoid using the word "scare" in the event description (not everyone was scared). "2009 New York City flyover by presidential VC-25" or similar would be less POV. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some people called the police because no one told them that this was just a photo op that was authorized by the FAA and DOD. Barely received any coverage, will likely be forgotten in a few weeks (yet alone in a few years). As the above user said, just a slow news day. Delete the other article too (the one mentioned in the top AFD). TJ Spyke 23:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People will forget it within a week. SYSS Mouse (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This will be notable for some time as a public relations debacle. Dismas|(talk) 00:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not believe so. Most US presidential administrations make many PR mistakes, most of which aren't significant in the long term. I am sure this is the case with this event. Cordovao (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has an "underconstruction tag," which means you're not supposed to delete it. Also, wikipedia is an encyclopedia - people will want to read about this in the future. Also, the article already cites CBS, CNN, The Los Angeles Times, and the Wall St Journal, so it's notable. Also, see The War of the Worlds (radio) for another similar article. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood my explanation at the article's talk page. The "underconstruction tag" only informs editors about that the article is still under construction and this awareness might keep them from nominating it at AFD after the first or first few edits and encouraged them to wait what the article might look like (and if it meets notability in this case). Will post my "vote" below.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a serious misuse of the Under Construction tag, if you think it is going to act as a shield for AfD. It was a PR mix-up, the talking heads have had their say, and life goes on. There's nothing more to really say about it, and the indented use of the tag (to let other editors knows that it is about to receive an overhaul) in this case is unwarranted, as there is nothing to overhaul. Tarc (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that I support deletion. As per WP:NOTNEWS we should restrict Wikipedia's coverage to events with long lasting notability. This event is not sufficiently extraordinary compared to other PR messups by many US presidential administrations in the past. Plus, as per WP:NOTNEWS again, a large amount of news coverage does not automatically confer notability. Also, the underconstruction tag says "Please consider not tagging with a deletion tag" as opposed to you shouldn't post a deletion tag. I believe the non-notability of the event justified an AFD whilst the uc tag was in place, as no matter what effort editors do to make the article the best it can be, it is still covering an event I believe to be non-notable. As for the War of the Worlds article, the fallout of that has retained long lasting notability into the present day, unlike what I believe will happen for this New York episode. Cordovao (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Linking with my thoughts above, non-notable as per WP:NOTNEWS. Cordovao (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. A one day hoopla not important enough to stand on its own, Merge a brief mention into the post-9/11 as noted above. Tarc (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The incident affected a lot of people, Wikipedia is not paper, and the reactions say something significant about the on-going insecurities the US has with respect to terrorism. Merging with September 11th after-effects works too. If it's genuinely forgotten after a week, reconsider deletion then. Peter Grey (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not deny the incident affected a lot of people, but that does not make it notable. Wikipedia is not paper, but we still follow the guideline that Wikipedia should restrict its coverage to events with long lasting notability, as codified at WP:NOTNEWS. As for the event being a demonstration of terrorism insecurities, that kind of analysis is appropriate for an article relating to 9/11. This is but one of many PR messups throughout recent times, admittedly more extreme than the average, but still not of lasting notability. Cordovao (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The duration of notability is unknown at this time. Peter Grey (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree, but in the same way as someone is innocent until proven guilty, for Wikipedia an event lacks historical notability until such time as it can be proven. I hold no prejudice against recreating the article if lasting notability is proven. We cannot keep the article up under the assumption it will have lasting notability. Cordovao (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now and/or merge (or even better, wait). I commented already on the article's talk page (before it was nominated for deletion) so I copy and paste part of it here (with some ce): "I would like to opinion that even so it's news right now it will (in this case) overcome and override wp:crystal in no time and I rarely [actually it's the first time] say such. As for merging it into the 9/11#Long-term effects section of the main article (which I checked and considered before I commented after becoming aware of this article), I just don't see a real "fit" in there. Potential merging (or deletion) could be still discussed in a week or so if sources won't raise the notability to a higher level.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)"
My point here: Let's not rush this AFD--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid I am somewhat confused by your explanation. May I ask how you respond to the WP:NOTNEWS argument? My apologies if you do address it above already. Cordovao (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely understand your confusion regarding wp:notnews (as it is usually one of my major concerns and reason for reversion of edits). Seems like (and I admit) it is contradicting WP rules, but sometimes you have to dismiss all policies and guidelines and yes, this is what I'm implying and urge editors to do in this single case; Not for good but for a short time span. I'll change my vote to merge or delete if nothing has changed after the timeline I've set above.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. Whilst I do see where you are coming from, WP:IAR says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it", and I do not see how having an article on an event almost positively, in my opinion, without long-lasting notability improves Wikipedia. Cordovao (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you see, at present we just have opposite opinions on this although sooner or later we might find ourselves in the same "bunch" (either way). Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hopefully, someone will be able to find a better title, although I'm at a loss for suggestions. Though it is, literally, "yesterday's news" (since it happened yesterday), I think that there's enough here for historic notability, as described above. Suffice to say that no jumbo jet has flown this low near Manhattan in nearly eight years, and that lessons will be learned about poor communication. Mandsford (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mean to sound repetitive, but many governments have engaged in big PR mistakes, and I fail to see what evidence there is that this event has historical notability. To simplify, a plane flew close to Ground Zero as part of a poorly executed operation, people panicked, harsh words were said, and that seems about it. To believe this will have historical notability doesn't fit with WP:CRYSTAL. I would also like to highlight an excellent essay called WP:RECENTISM. Cordovao (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to imply that I'm guilty of "recentism" here; and I hasten to point out that WP:CRYSTAL applies to future events, not to our opinions about whether an event has historic notability. Anytime something makes the news, we make our judgment as to whether we feel that it has staying power. You don't believe that this would be historically notable, and that's cool, you're entitled to your opinion. I believe that it will be. Know what? Your opinion is not more or less valid than mine. The closing administrator will have the final say on this. Mandsford (talk) 02:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, slow news day story. In other news, water is wet and rocks are hard. Nakon 02:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - today I was thinking to myself, "50-50 chance someone's written an article on this, but please let it not be so". Alas. This is what we call news. It's recentism, it's a one-day thing, no one died or was injured, disruption lasted maybe a few minutes, the matter is already closed. Nothing, as far as we can tell, will be affected: not safety procedures, not Obama's approval rating, not the economy, not the New Jersey governor's race. I don't mind this being userfied if I turn out to be wrong about lasting notability, but let's take it out of the mainspace for now. - Biruitorul Talk 02:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable Ipunknown (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Who knows if it was just a photo-op? Why was the President uninformed? Was he really uninformed? People will talk about this one for a long time, it's not an incident that will be forgotten. Erxnmedia (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, it's been confirmed by MANY MANY sources that it was a photo-op. It was approved by by both the FAA and DOD and they informed all of the local police agencies. TJ Spyke 03:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have really anything to do with the President himself. You should understand this just going thru the article and the sources as they stand right now. (And FYI, my vote was to keep it for now).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SPECULATION - neither of us knows the last sentence ("People will talk...") to be true, but based on what we do know, we should delete. - Biruitorul Talk 03:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to September 11 attacks as stated above. 1-2 good sentences will cover it there. This is minor PR mistake with no long term effects. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to main 9/11 article until further coverage, per Fnlayson. In fact, the President has just ordered a review of this incident, and if one ever gets out or more details develop then maybe the airplane scare might deserve its own article. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to main 9/11 article, maybe as a section of "long-term events"? I feel that this merits a mention somewhere, if not its own article, then as a part of the 9/11 page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IanManka (talk • contribs) 04:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & watch it grow. another example of not recognizing the sort of news that has permanent value. DGG (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does every plane flying over NY have news value now? Kimchi.sg (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a straw man. There are many, many flights that enter airspace over the NYC area every day. And, to answer your question: "No". Reliable sources cover this flight and, therefore, so do we. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reliable sources do cover the flight, but as WP:NOTNEWS addresses, reliable coverage does not equate lasting notability. Cordovao (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • NOTNEWS exists to prevent articles on everyday occurrences such as sporting contests and weather stories. This clearly doesn't fall under NOTNEWS. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Whilst WP:NOTNEWS makes a specific attack against coverage of routine occurrences, it does generalize to say "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events." Cordovao (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no one will remember this in 1 months' time. Translation: WP:NOTNEWS. Kimchi.sg (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was on NHK international news broadcast in Japanese throughout Japan. Not minor or regional news. Fg2 (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOTNEWS says, regardless of the extent of coverage, if an event cannot be proven as having or will have lasting notability, it is probably not appropriate for Wikipedia. Cordovao (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the event itself is minor non-encyclopedic news. Its effect is encyclopedic so gather what's verifiable and sourceable and merge it to September 11 attacks#Long-term effects. The remaining article can be deleted as it's poorly named which is why 2 of these sprung up from well meaning editors On second thought, there is no need to compromise here, this is clearly a violation of WP:NOT#NEWS, transwiki to wikinews and delete here.--RadioFan (talk) 06:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would go with a merge on this issue if it made sense to merge into any particular article. You can't merge into one particular article because this cover so many topics: the September 11 attacks and the natural uneasiness that comes with low-flying aircraft over Manhattan, and the pure stupidity from federal agencies and the executive branch of the U.S. governnent. It makes way more sense to keep the article in this spot. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An official investigation is being launched. How often does that happen? How is that not encyclopedic? Grundle2600 (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, quite often with these types of badly executed operations. Cordovao (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Absolutely no historical notability. "Official investigations" into one thing or another are launched every half hour, that does not make them encyclopedic. JohnCD (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you know that an event that happened two days ago has "absolutely no historical notability"? "'Official investigations' into one thing or another are launched every half hour, that does not make them encyclopedic." Perhaps not, but the existance of reliable sources certainly does make a subject encyclopedic. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are "reliable sources" every time a pop star sneezes, that does not make it encyclopedic. JohnCD (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This article isn't about a sneezing celebrity, so I don't see how your comment is relevant. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You said: "the existance of reliable sources certainly does make a subject encyclopedic". I disagree, and gave an instance of an unencyclopedic subject with reliable sources. JohnCD (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the title to Air Force One photo op controversy. Grundle2600 (talk) 08:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC) I changed the title again, this time to Air Force One photo op scare. Grundle2600 (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I moved it back to your first choice, as your second move made it impossible for a non-admin to revert to the original name. Please discuss any further moves on the article talk page. - BillCJ (talk) 09:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As a "controversy" it's probably very contrived, but notable none-the-less politically, especially in how the administration is appearing to mishandle its response to the incident. - BillCJ (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This PR mistake, aftermath and handling is similar in type, although I admit the flyover was a bigger-than-average PR mistake, to many PR mistakes, aftermaths and handlings that have plagued many US presidential administrations before. I do not see any evidence this will have lasting notability, and as such advocate deletion per WP:NOTNEWS. Cordovao (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - lets stop with the moves while this discussion is active.--RadioFan (talk) 11:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because, as usual, everyone who wants to keep it has failed to understand what an encyclopedia does. This is why we have Wikinews. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. ~EdGl ★ 14:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability will be lasting. If time proves me wrong, resubmit it to AfD then. Mike R (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But what proof do you have it will have lasting notability? We cannot assume it will; the onus is on evidence to prove that and not to prove it won't have lasting notability. Cordovao (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, but what you're saying makes no sense. Do you really think that "proof that it will have lasting notability" is required? How can anyone prove what will happen in the future? Mike R (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, proof is required. WP:NOTNEWS says that events must be shown to have lasting notability; "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events." We cannot prove right now so we must base a prediction based on available evidence, and I do not believe the evidence shows that the event will be historically notable. Cordovao (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of reliable sources, incident was widely and internationally reported. Wikipedia should certainly cover it in some form. Per Mike R, I suggest a "wait and see" approach to see if, long term, this would be better merged into other articles. — Matt Crypto 15:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not deny plenty of reliable sources covering the event exist, and I do not deny the incident was widely reported both nationally and internationally. However, as is the precedent for most articles in this situation, they are deleted baring proof of lasting notability until such proof can arise at which time the article can be recreated. It is not usual to keep an article up on the assumption it will have lasting notability (to note, I see no proof this will have lasting notability beyond many RP mistakes), and then delete if that does not turn out to be true. Cordovao (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • To elaborate, I'm inclined to see this is already notable enough right now, but to address your point, for a current event like this, I see very little harm in being liberal in provisionally keeping it (precedents notwithstanding). — Matt Crypto 16:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP. This was a major incident, creating mass chaos in NYC and covered by the international media. It deserves its own article as the coverage and emerging facts will be ongoing. Non-notable? Please, if this isn't notable I don't know what is. Coolgamer (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many chaotic incidents have occurred which were covered by the international media, many of which have not had lasting notability. Cordovao (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "if this isn't notable I don't know what is" -- the September 11 attacks? the Universe? I could create some more examples if you'd like ;-) — Matt Crypto 16:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NOTNEWS. Not to the extent of the 2007 Boston bomb scare. Grsz11 18:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere or Transwiki to Wikinews WP:NOT#NEWS. It seems unlikely that this event will have independent historical notability, except in the context of Administration press relations. Put it into an article on that subject. RayTalk 20:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Very substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Still making news as it's investigated. Argument to delete amount to "I don't like it". ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I confess I do not see any evidence of people arguing for deletion on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I myself am arguing for deletion on the basis of WP:NOTNEWS which says events which have received very substantial coverage in independent reliable sources does not automatically confer notability. As per WP:NOTNEWS, proof has to be established the event has lasting notability, otherwise it is probably not appropriate to have a Wikipedia article on it. Cordovao (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What evidence do you need that the event has lasting notability? It was a big deal and the news is still developing. If you aren't interested, don't read the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not deny it is a big deal, but so have many PR mistakes in the past that have proved not to be of lasting notability. I do not think any evidence can be found to prove or disprove lasting notability for this event at the moment, since the length of time since it has been too small to judge. However, to put it simply, a plane flew too close to Ground Zero, people panicked, harsh responses followed, apologies made, and an investigation started typical of such messups. To me, this does not spell an event of lasting notability. I wish to reiterate my lack of prejudice to recreating the article if lasting notability is shown. Plus, I do not advocate deletion because I am not interested in the article. I advocate deletion because this article is an example of WP:NOTNEWS. Cordovao (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTNEWS says "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." So unless the huge coverage of airforce one and two fighter jets flying around ground zero causing panic and numerous 9-11 calls amounts to routine news coverage, you're misapplying a policy. Your argument boils down to: " To me, this does not spell an event of lasting notability," which is another way of saying "I don't like it." It's gotten lots of coverage and it's still in the news. The investigations and recriminations are ongoing. Flying airforce one around to take picture five days after Earth Day was wasteful and thoughtless, it caused panic and fear among tens or hundreds of thousands of people, but you're not interested. So I suggest again, don't read the article. It meets all the inclusion guidelines and is clearly a notable event that should be included. Your logic of deleting things in case they turn out not to be notable also has it backwards. Think about it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTNEWS also says "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events". And, I do not see how me arguing the event will probably not have lasting notability is the same as me saying I don't like it. Plus, I do not see how I have my logic backwards when I say that an event must be shown to be of lasting notability before it should have an article, instead of keeping an article on the presumption it will have lasting notability. Cordovao (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the September 11 attacks as others have said. This is more related with 9/11 then it is with anything else especially as it deals with the long term psychological traumatic side effects of the attack. Brothejr (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Don't merge, it is already longer than WP:WEIGHT would allow within the 9/11 article itself, and can be expanded as the fallout over it continues (which is still ongoing and will likely result in staff firings). Event meets every general notability guideline criteria; received significant, reliable, widespread coverage. This wasn't due to a "slow news day", this was a massive debacle. It isn't a one-off news story, either, as many news sources are repeatedly going back to cover the events that are unfolding as a result (Caldera may be sacked, for instance). Long articles in Washington Post (1), Washington Post (2), Washington Post (3), U.S. News and World Report, The New York Times (1), New York Times (2), Fox News (1), Fox News (2), Chicago Tribune (1), Chicago Tribune (2), Chicago Tribune (3), Boston Globe (1), Boston Globe (2), Associated Press (1). Shorter articles in Kansas City Star, Chicago Tribune (4), Chicago Tribune (5), Chicago Tribune (6), Birmingham Star, The Plain Dealer (Cleveland), CBS News, ABC News, Associated Press (2), etc. Google News has this from the past week. WP:NOTNEWS says: "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." That is surely not the case in this instance. Strikehold (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • With regards to the article being too large to merge, if a decision is reached to merge only a part of it will be as per the WP:WEIGHT guideline you specified. As for meeting the general notability guidelines I do agree the event has. However, WP:NOTNEWS was designed for such events. Apart from saying "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article", it also says "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events". The event should be of lasting notability, and I do not believe there is conclusive proof that will happen. Plus, as for "many news sources are repeatedly going back to cover the events", the event did only happen a short time ago. Having said all of this, if Caldera is sacked over this, I will immediately withdraw all my delete arguments and argue for a keep, as I think such a removal makes the event historically notable. Until such time I do not believe the probability of staff firings is enough to establish historical notability, as such a response is typical of many PR mistakes. Cordovao (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely my point: I never said the article was too large to merge, I was simply saying that a lot of relevant information will be lost if it is merged. And yes, it should be of lasting effect, but what is the basis for saying whether an event has lasting significance? I think one of the best metrics is how much news coverage it receives at the time. As you can clearly see above, it has had an enormous amount, and it is continuing. Someone else said delete, but then brought up 2007 Boston bomb scare; I fail to see how this is less significant than that. Strikehold (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many articles have been deleted despite posessing lots of relevant information, such as the article on Alexandros Grigoropoulos. He also received lots of media attention, but was still considered a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. As for how the flyover is less significant than the bomb scare, a poorly planned and executed flyover is much less notable than a city bomb scare. Cordovao (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grigoropoulos was a WP:BLP1E issue -- which doesn't apply in this case. This wasn't just "a poorly planned and executed flyover", it appeared distinctly to be another 9/11-style attack and caused widespread panic in the largest city of the United States. The "bomb" scare caused a far lesser degree of panic, and the devices had already been used in a bunch of other cities with no one thinking anything of them -- there's simply no way that the Boston incident remotely compares to this. Strikehold (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Off-to-the-side comment Am I the only way who think it's going to be a long 5 days of an AFD for this one? :) Cordovao (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't be any longer or more tedious than for Joe the Plumber, or with any greater number of name changes. Erxnmedia (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh boy. I'm glad I wasn't a party to the main AFD for that article. Cordovao (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aren't AfDs 7 days now? If so, it will definitely be a long 5 days :)
  • My guess is, this incident will be forgotten in 5 days... Seriously, this is an encyclopedia, not a news media archive. Splette :) How's my driving? 06:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - easily satisfies WP:N (thousands of sources, major mentions, etc.) so the only question is WP:NOT#NEWS. We truly don't know whether any recent thing will have lasting notability, and it is too early to be sure, so we are in the same position as any article involving a recent event. Looking over the details this is the sort of incident that tends to have lasting notability. The indications are that it is the intersection of a number of different subjects (the presidency, the air force, 9/11, New York, the war on terror), has gathered broad commentary from a lot of sources, and news coverage has increased rather than decreased from each day to the next. It is not a frivolous random, tabloid-ish event of the sort normally covered by not#news. Plus it does inform the reader to know about it. This is a judgment call, but all in all it looks more likely than not to be notable. If that proves wrong we can always delete it later. This is a brand new article about an emerging event. It should have been given a few days to mature. As it stands, the article and the event will mature so that by the end of the AfD process we ought to have a better idea. Wikidemon (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional keep: While I don't think that this event is as significant as others do, I think it may be a bit premature to guess how notable it really is. It has been a few days, but the news franchises are still discussing it, so it may possiby have more notability than some editors would assume at the first and second glances. My suggestion is to wait a month or so, and if this hasn't developed into something more significant (there are rumbling that some officials might get fired for this), then we can can it. Should the consensus be against waiting, I'd like my vote to alter to a delete, because it currently doesn't seem to satisfy the criteria. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Neither notable nor news. Article not encyclopedic and given the trivial nature of the event never will be. Maybe, one paragraph fits in with an article dealing with the after-effects of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in that it's interesting some New Yorkers are still apprehensive about planes above Manhattan but it does not merit an article on its own. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not news, as above. Averell (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:Not news or particularly notable most of worlds media has moved on. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Transwiki to WikiNews - WP is not a newspaper. LadyofShalott 18:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an article (Post 9/11) that includes and attracts conspiracies and since it's creation in early 2006 never made it to a decent entry? Nay, I'd say.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Clean-keeper" complains that an article isn't clean. Wow, the irony, it burns! How about: SOFIXIT? 163.1.146.198 (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:sofixit? On which article should I start and how much would you be willing to pay me for my work? :) And BTW, I'm not complaining.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the "timeline article has nothing to do with it at all.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That Post 9/11 isn't a "decent entry" shouldn't be a barrier to a merge; the article can always be improved. Cordovao (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right but the first part of my comment you refer to is.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why doe the timeline article have nothing to do with it? That article is specifically about the repercussions and effects of 9/11 post October 2001. The reason we're even discussing this flyover is because of 9/11. Without 9/11, this story wouldn't have even made it onto Wikinews, let alone Wikipedia. So I fail to see why the timeline has nothing to do with it at all. It's a story about a direct effect of 9/11, and it is from the relevant time-frame of the timeline too. When someone makes a point of "I think X", you can't just rebut by going "I don't think X", you have to give specific reasons why you don't think X. You haven't done this here. To my timeline suggestion, you just tell me it has nothing to do with this story. Why? Give reasons. 163.1.146.198 (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I gave my opinion as did you and I didn't "rebut" anything. Want my reasons? Give your reasons I'd say.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, I've already given my reasons why a mention of this event should be in Timeline beyond October following the September 11 attacks. This event is directly related to the September 11 attacks, which should be obvious to anyone who knows what this event is. And this event also occurred sometime in April 2009, while the timeline article is specifically for those events which are directly related to the attacks, and occurred sometime after October 2001. April 2009 is after October 2001. Now, I've spelled it out so even a child could understand, so why do you oppose a mention of this event in the article Timeline beyond October following the September 11 attacks? 163.1.146.198 (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTNEWS; no lasting notability (i.e. the media have already stopped talking about it). I don't think there's anything here worth merging either, but wouldn't object to a line or two being added to Boeing VC-25. Robofish (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the media has not stopped talking about this. These stories are within the last 24 hours: The Ledger; New York Daily News, The Hartford Courant, Newark Star-Ledger, Fox Business News, Newark Star-Ledger, New York Post, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal (1), Wall Street Journal (2), Fox News, NewsMax, U.S. News & World Report, USA Today, Philadelphia Inquirer. Strikehold (talk) 08:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anyone contends that the media will never talk about this event again. However, the coverage will most likely decline very quickly, from what I can tell. As of right now the possible big repercussions that were being floated around don't seem to be in the works, hence contributing further to my impression the event won't have historical notability. Cordovao (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I stand corrected. Changed to Keep: this story is more notable than I realised. No prejudice against reconsidering it for deletion at a later date, though. Robofish (talk) 04:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies notability many times over due to massive, including international coverage as demonstrated above. WP:NOTNEWS is referred to a lot in the discussion but "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." is not the case in this instance. Hobartimus (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But WP:NOTNEWS also says the more general "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events". I can't see conclusive evidence this event will be historically notable. Cordovao (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is an impossible metric to use. No one can ever prove that, and it is a subjective matter of opinion, anyway. Who says that the "2009 May Day protests", currently on the front page, or the other scores of protests articles that are created contemporaneously have any lasting signifigance? It is clearly better to use the general notability guidelines, which this passes easily. Strikehold (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who says it passes that criteria? The consensus of the editors, that's what.
Regardless, if you have a problem with NOTNEWS, part of official Wikipedia policy, then take it up at the its talk page. 163.1.146.198 (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't patronize me. Cordovao said he cannot see "conclusive evidence", so I asked him how it would ever be possible to provide that -- it isn't. NOTNEWS does not require conclusive evidence, it simply says historical signifigance is "considered". Strikehold (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I misinterpreted you comment to mean that NOTNEWS was an impossible metric, not the idea of "conclusive evidence", which I didn't pick up on when I read Cordovao's comment. And if it looked like I was being patronizing, I'm sorry, that wasn't deliberate. 163.1.146.198 (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we cannot prove or disprove that the event has historical notability within such a small time after the event. All we can do is estimate based on available evidence, and due to the fact that this is one of many big PR mistakes which have plagued many US presidential administrations, and which doesn't seem to be having any big consequences (ventures that Caldera would be fired do not seem to be coming true), I believe the event will not have historical notability and should be deleted. If evidence proves otherwise at a later date, I will be the first to support re-creating the article. And I don't think worldwide violent protests and a botched flyover can be compared. As for "It is clearly better to use the general notability guidelines, which this passes easily", then why have WP:NOTNEWS at all? If we allowed every story on a recent event based on the general notability guidelines, most articles on recent events that got deleted would still be up. The event does pass the general notability guidelines, but WP:NOTNEWS is there to provide exceptions. Cordovao (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have NOTNEWS to help prevent articles on "routine news stories"; as it states, historical significance is considered in the determination of what is routine news. Strikehold (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is about WP:NOTNEWS anymore but rather about relevance and notability to determent if this incident deserves it's own article or not and if the latter would be the outcome of this AFD, part of it should be merged into the main article (as it already has been done).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think that is a pretty good way of thinking about this. I agree the event should be mentioned somewhere, like Post 9/11, but I don't agree it is notable enough for its own article. Cordovao (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice If notability is established later, recreate. It's probably already in Wikinews (if not, why not?). If someone gets sacked, record it on his/her page. If they haven't got a page, don't bother. Peridon (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree that this should be mentioned in other articles as others have suggested. That said, this event has garnered an immense amount of media attention and analysis, which has been added to this article. It's not hard to imagine people talking about "The day Air Force One flew low over Manhattan" for years to come. There will undoubtedly be people as time goes on that will want to read about the details of this blunder (people involved, reasons, public statements, reaction, etc.). That level of detail shouldn't be added to already-long articles like 9/11, Air Force One, Barak Obama, etc. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this was a very strange, well publicized event, with ramifications beyond what a few sentences can cover in an article about the September 11th attacks. For example, reports have stated that New York police were told that an airplane would fly low over New York city but that telling anyone about it would expose them to federal sanctions. This seems like an excess of secrecy to rival the use of the Official Secrets Act to prohibit Londoners from disclosing the existence of the British Telecom Communications Tower. We should keep a place where editors can continue documenting aspects of this event. Mike Serfas (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems that most people want to delete this for political reasons. I saw a documentary on the History channel that said the Air Force maintains the two planes in the presidential fleet, but only the secret service can authorize their flight - there is more to this story and I'll be interested to see what the official investigation turns up. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, what political reasons? (all I see is citing WP:NOTNEWS) ~EdGl ★ 18:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure "political reasons" is in the back of 1 or 2 people's minds but the overwhelming majority of deleters have made it so plainfully, and painfully, obvious that the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. When the official investigation is finished, and if it includes anything notable and anything that can stand up to our guidelines for inclusion, I'll be the first to yell "keep" if it comes to Afd again. Aside from that, please assume a little good faith. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 18:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but there is so much trivial shit on wikipedia that I find it odd for there to be such an outcry to quickly delete something like this. If the investigation finds something then it'll likely be relegated to some small news blurb - this article will never be re-created, but we'll instead keep the sexual histories of every single obscure anime character because, well, that is notable and important. People can justify anything, it isn't like most people will come out and say why they want this deleted, but again, the outcry over something so recent and still developing is telling in my eyes. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL is there for a reason and we can't just let an article sit here hoping notability flies in on a magic carpet. :] - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 18:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Political reasons? Thank you. I needed a good laugh today. I happen to disagree with the majority of Obama's political positions. My friends and neighbors (all of them are hardcore socialists progressives liberals) here in D.C. will find it amusing. APK straight up now tell me 18:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it is notable now - its potential for further notability is simply a side note. Look at how we still have articles like the Summer_of_the_Shark, but this event is somehow less notable? Give me a break. The only difference is that this is political and so people are voting, either conciously or unconciously, based on party lines. People seem to apply rules and have different standards when they have political/religious motivations (practically the same thing in my mind). TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess WP:AGF is no longer a guideline. APK straight up now tell me 19:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can quote the wikigospel all you want or you can engage in a thoughtful debate - that's your choice. The fact remains that we have articles like the Summer of the Shark going strong for over 8 years without apparent dissent, but with this article we have an outpour of censor-fury. And so I ask myself why? Hell, the fact that so many people, on both sides, are commenting on this page is evidence that it is indeed notable. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo 3:16 (KJV, of course) - "Assume good faith as much as possible." APK straight up now tell me 19:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the King Jimbo Version? haha ~EdGl ★ 19:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. APK straight up now tell me 19:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAX is not a good argument. If you don't like the article Summer of the Shark, then nominate it for deletion, rather than making baseless accusations that everyone on here wanting to delete this article is doing so for "political reasons". What evidence do you have that any of us are biased? 163.1.146.198 (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if I like the article or not. I just believe we should be very careful when censoring material since people may have different motivations for wanting to erase something from history. If you don't like it then don't read it. I can easily imagine a New Yorker telling a younger relative about this in the future and them coming to wikipedia to learn about it only to find that there is zero information on it. I can imagine few things more fascist than people deciding certain information is "inappropriate." TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The flaw with the not#news argument is that its based on a judgment call. This subject is more complex than a routine news report on a "slow news day" about a fly over. Just yesterday The Guardian from the U.K publish another story indicating that significant coverage on RS is not an issue, [1]. If you ask me, I choose the argument for inclusion based on general notability over a judgment call of some wikipedians. --Jmundo 22:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's been accepted that the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is a fallacy. In this case, we're seeing the exact opposite argument, where other stuff doesn't exist. That's just as fallacious as the converse. bibliomaniac15 23:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who is making the argument "Other stuff doesn't exist"? 163.1.146.198 (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per not news (as others). If it really gets notable later (which i doubt), then the article can be recreated. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly this fails WP:NOTNEWS. Now if this is a notable event in 6 months, then I'll reconsider. Are those in favor or keeping going to accept that every stupid event that shows up on the news is notable? That is the path that we will be going down if we keep this. Maybe the real question is, is this encyclopedic? I don't believe that it is or that a case has been made in this discussion that it is. I see no reason to compound the stupidity of the event by declaring that action as encyclopedic. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, now we have to wait 6 months before creating an article about a news event? How about we let the article stay, and then in 6 months, if it is no longer notable, you nominate it again for deletion. If you are correct, then in 6 months, you should be able to WP:PROD it. :) Based on the lack of consensus, this doesn't appear to be a clear-cut WP:NOTNEWS situation. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but you're not thinking like a deletionist. If your edit contains one word or idea they don't like, it's their prerogative to revert it entirely. It's your responsibility to beg them to argue, to spend ten times longer proving your case than it took you to research the edit, and to negotiate with Your Boss The Deletionist how much to include. Likewise if an article is appropriate, it's your responsibility to prove to them that this is the case in lengthy discussions. And if a policy doesn't actually call for deletion, it's your responsibility to point that out, over and over again, because the deletionists would revert any attempt you made to make the policy clearer, and all your fine arguments about it just end up in an unread archive. And by the way, if anyone actually reads this NOTNEWS policy, they'd see that it clearly states that breaking news should not be treated differently from other information. The only "not" in it is about "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism". Which of those is this? Wnt (talk) 05:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete above comment ;) Seriously though, was that rant necessary? ~EdGl ★ 17:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's my problem with all of this WP: CRAP - most people are too stupid to read beyond the title of it and actually implement the policy as it is written. I imagine that the people voting to delete and quoting "NOTTHENEWS" haven't actually read what that policy actually says. People misquote wikipedia policy more than they apply it properly - most proper applications are probably accidents that coicide with their own preconceptions. I love the website but really hate the community. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about, from WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events... not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." and, from WP:News articles (yes, it's an essay, but still worth considering): "Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact." JohnCD (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for proving my point - people can extract small segments as "proof" that their position is correct - whether or not this intellectual dishonesty is intentional or not I cannot say. Did you willfully or ignorantly leave off the next sentence that explains it is talking about routine news like sports announcements? TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That next sentence has already been "extracted" above. It gives examples of some things that don't have historical notability but it's not a complete list. JohnCD (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent> Well here's another extraction you missed from the article you quoted the first sentence of:

1. The subject of the news item has become the subject of secondary documentation or analysis independent of news services. This includes being the subject of books, documentaries or non-trivial academic study (i.e. excluding non-scientific surveys), or incorporation in an important public debate.

2. The subject of the news item has set, or has caused to set, a precedent in some way. This includes new laws being passed, novel interpretations of existing law, first tests of new law, notable "first of its kind" achievements, new or increased safety legislation, causing a notable change in societal behaviour or norms, etc. (Predictions that it will set a precedent, however, are inappropriate attempts to predict the future).

Are you going to argue that this event meets none of the criteria that are actually listed in the article? TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The impact was big enough that Wikipedia ought to have an article on it. Blackeagle (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it highly unusual for a debate about a proposed article deletion to last this long without reaching a consensus? Grundle2600 (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "reaching a consensus" do you mean "being closed by an admin"? If so, then I would point out that the length of time for an AFD to run has recently been raised from 5 to 7 days... Nevertheless, the "harder" decisions (i.e. those that require more deliberation) often sit around open for a bit longer than that, while admins look at it and possibly decide to pass the buck. =) –xeno talk 19:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I meant. Thanks for explaining that the normal time has been raised from 5 to 7 days, and that it can take even longer. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Additional citations are still being added. Notability was already well established and substantial coverage from reliable sources continues to accumulate. But those who don't like the article can maybe try again in 6 months. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-noble incident, merge with 9/11, wikipedia is not news. 98.119.158.59 (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2009_New_York_City_airplane_scare&oldid=1140116698"