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. postdlf (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian Airlines ET702 hijacking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. An isolated incident with no repercussions in Swiss, Italy or Ethiopia. And its not unique an hijacking to the airline itself.

Also note, needless redirects created as : Ethiopian Airlines Flight 702 , Ethiopian Airlines flight ET702, Ethiopian Airlines ET702 hijacking ‎Lihaas (talk) 08:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails the WP:AIRCRASH requirements for a stand-alone article. I also removed the entry from Ethiopian Airlines accidents and incidents. I don't see why people is expecting for a notice like this one to show up to promptly start an article. WP:NOTNEWS applies here as well, as mentioned by the nominator.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Flight International says that the copilot hijacked the aircraft ("Ethiopian Airlines flight hijacked by co-pilot".). This is somewhat more serious. Not sure this warrants a stand-alone article, so I suggest a redirect to Ethiopian Airlines accidents and incidents. BTW, the entry there needs cleanup.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Hijacking and attempted hijackings are rear now. Unlike Pegasus Airlines Flight 751 the hijacker involved was the co-pilot and not a drunk man. User:151.224.31.29 User tallk:151.224.31.29 10:50 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• • Note: the above IP (151*) has been blocked as a sock of a community banned user. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Regarding long-term notability, *pilots* have never (v rarely?) gone rogue and redirected major airline passenger flights, then abandoned the craft, in an attempt to seek asylum. Especially when their means of doing so is to lock other staff out of the cabin. This makes it an unusual incident alone. Further, hijackings are rare in modern airspace, especially on major airlines such as Ethiopian, and on flights that implement the post-9/11 security measures (which any flight entering European airspace does, I believe). Finally, although not notable on its own, significant police and ATC intervention resulted. Leondz (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Just a side note, I found at least two more cases which (co-)pilot was the hijacker. (China Airlines Flight 334, and one Air China aircraft in 1998) --Leeyc0 (Talk) 08:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Notable event citing reliable sources. More information is unfolding. 60.242.1.97 (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly notable with or without "repercussions" and I don't see how you can rule out repercussions considering the incident happened today.--Razionale (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable event really happen. --Wind of freedom (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ITSNOTABLE.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Incidents like this are a record for History and is a worthy candidate for encyclopedia.Quartzd (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per WP:NOTNEWS. A lot of rationalization going on in the above responses to justify an article that's easy to write because it's in the news. Nobody was hurt, I have some recollection that there have been other incidents of this ilk, and I don't buy the "all hijackings are notable" theory. Where's Patrick Smith when you need him? Mangoe (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless someone is hurt or killed that would make it notable now? Not the fact that a pilot gone rouge which does not really happen that much in modern aviation. Way has it got to the stage on wiki that almost every event such as this are being put up for deletion when they are notable for reason as above but yet still end up being deleted which damages the entry of the encyclopedia. Because some events are notable in some aspects of wiki guidelines but most incidents like this are not notable in some eyes but they are to others. Have the guidelines been changed to help because lets face it aviation accidents may still occur but not like every week a passengers jet gets hijacked or blown up or runway off the end of the runway. Because lessons are learned but in some parts of aviation say like Russia not so much yes they are trying there bast to improve safety but they are long way off. A crash last year was put up for deletion but that still meet wiki rules. This hijacking may have cause some Security concerns and what is the airline or Boeing or any other government body's going to do so if one of there planes gets hijacked again and it's not used as a weapon. The hijacker himself would be facing 20 years in jail for hijacking the aircraft. The wiki guidelines on incidents and others need to be changed or addressed to stop deleting articles that are notable and what really is not in today's terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.36.118 (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]
    • To digest the above, one important point is that the guidelines for airplane incidents are for what events should be _included_ if they match the criteria. They do not imply that events which do not fall within the guidelines are therefore not notable. That would pre-empt the range of possible interesting things, and we can't predict what will happen in the news and be noteworthy as a result. Leondz (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: the above IP (86*) has been blocked as a sock of a community banned user. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has coverage in reliable third party sources, to the nominator: Per WP:BEFORE I feel that a discussion could have been carried out before an outright deletion here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. It even seems like a pretty good example of a speedy keep. Leondz (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Has major media coverage, caused many flights to divert/cancellations, and it is notable in the fact this is the first of such incidents where a pilot on a post 9/11 airliner landed in an entirely different country to seek asylum. To be notable, there doesn't have to be people dying/aircraft loss. Airplanegod (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia will be sending out the wrong signal if it deems that only hijackings involving deaths are worthy of notability. --Tovojolo (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where were you when we needed comments regarding the matter at WT:AIRLINE? The discussion was archived with no consensus. Inputs like this one support my thinking that this is getting attention because of news coverage only.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

** But news coverage is a reference beside other database websites like Aviation Safety Network or The Aviation Herald. How else now day's are you meat to get a good reference if not been in the news already. Is this discussion of airline accident still going if not keep making a fuss until there is a good and better way to determine the notable of some airline incidents or accident. I like to give and example please:

• • • Light aircraft crashes into field no one but the plane is destroyed - Not notable
    • Light aircraft crashes into building or houses kills all and people on the ground notable - not just due to deaths, public outcry for change and investigation into cause and safety recommendations, to airport, airplane or other.
  • It is all about the circumstances that can make an accident notable in people eyes and can have sometimes the same impacted as any other accident on wiki but the guiltiness that say yes or no on notability and not all fear enough to include other accidents in different circumstances and that is way because of this ongoing fight between what we think is right and what wiki say is wrong will keep going and no one will win and like I said before it damages the entry encyclopedic. So here is a thing that I have come up with, put up a tag on the talk page saying this has being flag for (AWICF) meaning A Waiting Investigation Circumstances and Aftermath, If the vote says yes to keep then this will be on the talk page it's about what happens afterwords if it has really hasten done long term affects on aviation safety or other. It will stay up for about say 5 years or less. If none of the has happened then when them years are are over it can be put up for deletion under wiki guidelines afterwords. Both sides win the article stay up for a few years and if nothing happens then you can get rid, If it comes up again then the presses will continue. But that is my opinion if it helps will I least I am trying to help and quit arguing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.36.118 (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:DEGRADE. Leondz (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: the above IP (86*) has been blocked as a sock of a community banned user. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this incident has been receiving plenty of coverage - in fact, as of this writing, it is at the top of Google News as I access it. However, Rename as Ethiopian Airlines Flight 702 in accordance with the title format of other similar articles (e.g. Aeromexico Flight 576, Japan Air Lines Flight 404, among others). TML (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to, and merge with Ethiopian Airlines accidents and incidents. The guidelines for notability of events state that an event is more likely to be notable if it has a lasting effect, have a wide geographic scope or impact and receive coverage beyond an immediate news cycle. The guidelines specifically state that an article can be both serious and widely, but that this is not in itself a reason for notability. In this case, the hijacking has been widely reported in the current news cycle, but follow-on reporting is relatively minimal and no lasting effect (in the sense of analysis or follow on discussion/action) is (as yet) apparent. The guidelines encourage patience before creating an article and, in this case, I believe that is wise counsel. Until the topic clearly becomes notable a redirect to the broader article about incidents at the airline seems appropriate. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – While it doesn't fall under WP:NOTNEWS, it does fall under WP:GNG and has several reliable sources. Epicgenius (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and speedy keep - Rename to Ethiopian Airlines Flight 702. Wikipedia is well served in a post-9/11 era of paying close attention to aviation incidents, and this one where a pilot evidently went rogue is unusual enough to warrant keeping. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Notable event citing reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.229.65.209 (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Very notable event. It has enough media coverage worldwide. Chmarkine (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to Ethiopian Airlines Flight 702. As others have noted, this has been widely reported. While there were no injuries or damage to the aircraft, this situation is unusual/remarkable due to the nature of the hijacking: the fact that the hijacker was the co-pilot. According to at least one news report I've come across, the last time this happened on a major airline was an Air China flight to Taiwan in the 1990s. There have probably been incidents (again, on a major airline) prior to that, but there's less information available about them (ie.before the internet made it easier to research details). It's too soon to judge the ramifications of this incident in the airline community: will this incident spark changes to policies of airlines leaving just one pilot in the cockpit? If deleted and this incident does lead to changes in the aviation community, there is a strong prejudice against re-creating an article after it has been deleted, unless an editor is dedicated enough to write a compelling case and start to the article, but less so for re-nominating for deletion after enough time has elapsed to recognize the impact of this incident. It will take some time (months) to realize the impact of this situation. There's too much information to shrink down to just a couple of sentences left in Ethiopian Airlines accidents and incidents . AHeneen (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to Ethiopian Airlines Flight 702 hijacking. Dicklyon (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fifty years from now this will still be considered encyclopedia-worthy. And today, the Swiss are asking themselves, "What happens if somebody invades us during our long lunch breaks? Do we have to rely on Italy to defend us?" GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Aircraft hijacking is already unusual itself, and it is even more unusual when (co-)pilot is the hijacker. (I can only find two more cases.) --Leeyc0 (Talk) 09:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am somewhat-but not completely-surprised to find this article is up for deletion. It had sufficient media coverage to have a stand alone article IMO. Antonio Too Sexy and you know it Martin (que pasa?) 11:42, February 18, 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per Leeyc0 Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete"": Not notable. Might rate a para in Airline or aircraft article nothing more!!--Petebutt (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This was a hard one to decide as many had strong opinions on this article. I would say keep as this article is cited by reliable sources and subject to featured media sources listed at WP:EVENT, this source shows in-depth coverage. --///EuroCarGT 02:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've struck the comments of a community banned editor. That editor has no right to participate anywhere on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As hijackings get rarer, it adds weight to the case for notability of such hijackings. WP:GNG is met, and WP:AIRCRASH is a guide, not the be all and end all as to the notability of aviation incidents. Mjroots (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm leaning towards keep, until the full impact of the incident is clearer once the media hype settles down. I believe it is notable and would stand up to WP:GNG in its current form far moreso than other uncontested articles such as 2014 748 Air Services HS 748 crash. Aside from the rarity of hijackings by crew, the incident involved authorities and a military escort from several nations as well as significant disruption to European air travel. The incident also highlights concerns raised by many within the aviation industry about the installation of locks on cockpit doors post September 11, 2001 intended as a safety measure which has quite possibly contributed to more accidents and incidents than it has prevented. Dfadden (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -This hijacking has recieved plenty of news coverage, plus it was the pilot that hijacked it. Sam.gov (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -This hijacking is significant, if only because it shows the Swiss airforce to be a 9 to 5 organisation.

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.