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 no consensus. verging towards an outright keep. The material is verifiable from multiple reliable sources and is neutral. The delete argument is not only numeretically smaller, it is particularly weak. WP:NOTNEWS is slippery - we actually allow many many news stories in as "notable incidents - in mutliple sources" (I'd say WP:NOTNEWS needs clarification here). But other than citing it, and using the "then we'd have to allow all sorts of crap in" line, there is no articulate case being made as to why wikipedia would be better off without this verifiable material. Scott Mac 20:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force One photo op incident[edit]

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

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2009_New_York_City_airplane_scare

How on Earth does this have an article? A plane that's sometimes used by the POTUS flew a bit low on a scheduled training mission and a few people were scared. There is no way this is notable enough to sustain its own article. Apparently it made Obama "furious", but if we wrote an article on everything that made some president furious, we could double our article count overnight. I'd settle for a merge to either Air Force One or an article on section on the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if kept, it certainly should be renamed, since there are many incidents at various Air Force One photo-ops. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 9/11#Long-term effects. –xeno^talk 04:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Similar incidents have happened several times in Australia in the last nine-or-so years when Air Force and civil aircraft have flown over major cities; these incidents are not notable. YSSYguy (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there's enough here to merit its own article, though it needs renaming to be more specific. elektrik SHOOS 05:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I'm not sure if the nominator is from the US or not, but back when this happened it was a fairly big scandal in Washington and appeared on most major newscast as a major story.It also appeared as #2 on Cracked.coms list of Propaganda that backfired horribly, I know Cracked is a humor website, but it just goes to show you that the incident has been absorbed into the general zeitgeist--Deathawk (talk) 05:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a significant incident, it was reported widely at the time it happened (made main news in UK) and people were frightened that another 9/11 was going to happen. Mjroots (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment each of the incidents in Australia has caused panic and also been featured on newscasts as a major story, but there has been no lasting impact from any of them. That they keep happening suggests that they are not notable enough for authorities to prevent aircraft flying over major cities in order that photos can be taken of them. YSSYguy (talk) 06:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are a few diferences here. First of all Australia hasn't had any notable terrorist attack commuted via plane in the last decade, put simply in Australia this kind of thing may be a simple oversight, in New York, where the 9/11 attacks haapened it is a major screw up by people that should of known better. Second of all Air Force One is the plane carrying the president,thus the use of Air Force One seemingly implies that someone close to the president knew about this and ok'd it. This incident ad it's aftermath was about more than a simple stunt that scared people it's about a major government screw up --Deathawk (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and yes, I'm from the U.S.). WP:NOTNEWS and in 20 years no one except the occasional astonished Wikipedia reader will remember this. Powers ^T 11:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per WP:NOTNEWS this is just a news event and is not notable for an encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: having changed my mind since the first AfD, I'm convinced this is more than a blip that hit the news networks. This incident isn't just a talking point, it is fairly significant in its immediate and long term effects. For one, the media is still talking about it, a year later, and that seems to satisfy the GNG to me. Some pretty high-ranking heads have rolled over this one, making it more akin to a political scandal than an aviation incident. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What media, besides us, are still talking about it? Powers ^T 12:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per WP:NOTNEWS. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - It's a historical incident worthy of inclusion, but make no mistake about it that this sort of article is a POV trojan horse that must be closely monitored. Carrite (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Should be treated the same as other weak keep articles, like all of the obscure Obama speeches. Otherwise, we look like an Obama campaign tool, keeping the obscure positive Obama stuff and getting rid of anything that makes Obama "furious". MVOO (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it still violates WP:NOTNEWS. I don't see that the long-term effects are noteworthy enough to grant notability.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While an interesting incident it still fails WP:NOTNEWS. Mauler90 _talk 00:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The airplane did not just "fly a bit low" and it did not just "scare a few people" as the person who nominated the article for deletion claims. Seeing a large passenger airplane followed by a military fighter jet in restricted airspace in the same area where the 9-11 attacks occurred caused many people to wrongly believe that another attack was taking place. It also made the President and everyone else involved look like they were out of touch with how people would feel. It also led to the resignation of a very high ranking military official. Australia has never been the victim of a 9-11 style attack, so such a comparison is not relevant. Five dollar milkshake (talk) 07:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that there is no long term notability to this incident to warrant its own article, though I'm not by any means averse to merging it to other coverage of the long-term effects of the 9/11 attacks which, if it's worthy of any inclusion, seems a logical place to note this incident. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure why you say that this doesn't have long term notability. Just like any other scandal, it gets most of its attention when it breaks, how long the talking heads discuss it is not the only yardstick of notability. bahamut0013^words _deeds 20:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per 5$. - BilCat (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the mainstays of Wikimedia Commons - and the illustration stock of Wikipedia - are images created by the US federal government, because they all are in public domain. Now we finally have a story about how some of such images are produced, at what cost, and whether they eventually are (or are not) released to the public. Sort of instructive :-) By the way, it would not be a bad idea to load all "146 photos" to the Commons - this would at least be some public use for the US taxpayers' $300K+ spent on the mission! Vmenkov (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No disrespect, but how is that in any way relevant HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, my comment may have been a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I do feel that the "incident" was an interesting case of the general public (or at least the media) becoming aware of, and interested in, how certain things are done within the US federal government - and the matter very much entering the public record. [If I were in the Lower Manhattan or Bayonne on that day, I personally probably would not have paid that much attention to those planes, beyond maybe trying to take a picture of them with my camera; but the public obviously did]. Vmenkov (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was a big story that a concise Wikipedia article on is very valuable. --Pmsyyz (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to the 9/11 extended effects subsection. I might be more convinced if it didn't fail WP:NOTNEWS. -- mitchsurp -- (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that this barely scrapes by WP:NOTNEWS and should be mentioned somewhere on WP. Therefore weak keep or merge to 9/11 per Rockneedsasavior.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, standard WP:NOTNEWS case. Merge would be a distant second. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a major incident that recieved international media coverage. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 17:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As I said in part the last time; "WP:NOTNEWS. A one day hoopla not important enough to stand on its own...". Many, if not all, of the "keep" callers display a fundamental misunderstanding of why news events are unencyclopedic. Yea, drive-by media had a field day with this for a few days, but that is all. This event had ZERO lasting significance or importance; coverage of the mini-event dropped to virtually nothing not even a week or two later. Per NOTNEWS, there is no "enduring notability". Tarc (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2010 (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.