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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biratnagar Plane Hijack[edit]

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

Unsourced; copyedit; expand; npov; peacock; toofewopinions; contested PROD — Jeff G. ツ 07:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:GNG (no reliable secondary sources). Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Easy Keep It did happen as described and was reported even in the United States [1], where news from Nepal is generally ignored. Although I had never heard of this, the rest of the world certainly has [2], which is not surprising. Generally, one would consider a hijacking that netted $400,000 ransom to be notable whether it happened yesterday in the U.S. or in 1973 in Nepal. Mandsford 13:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve by rewriting based on the available sources - which, as demonstrated by Mandsford, are enough to pass WP:GNG). Alzarian16 (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. I am somewhat surprised that there are not more sources covering this in-depth, but I just may not know the right search terms. I did find one detailed account on pages 4-5 of this Buddha Air pdf. Another report here: [3]. Location (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The event got a significant AP story that was published widely. What more do you want? Zachlipton (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article should be moved, to a better name. The current name has no search results. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that "1973 Nepal hijacking" would work better. So many times, the "official" title is not the one that ordinary folks like I would think of looking. For instance, if you're looking for an article about a bad earthquake that collapsed bridges in San Francisco around 20 years ago, it would be hard to find it. If you happen to know already that it was called the "1989 Loma Prieta earthquake", then you probably don't need to look it up on Wikipedia in the first place. Mandsford 12:59, 3 July 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.