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. A name change for the article would certainly be in order, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 663[edit]

United Airlines Flight 663 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Incomplete deletion request. Per Talk:United Airlines Flight 663, the nominator was arguing WP:NOT#NEWS. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BLP1E concerns too. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. All notable commercial airline accidents and incidents are one-time events, and we cover them as a matter of course. This incident was covered internationally and has led to broader debates in the national media (see citations in article). It's notable when the State Department makes it clear they want a diplomat out of the country as soon as possible. Although extensive BLP-type biographical information about the diplomat was published, the article mentions him by name only because he was the reason for the incident. Jokestress (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this meet WP:AIRCRASH? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my 16 April comment below. I believe the standard by which this should be judged in terms of notability is not the essay WP:AIRCRASH, but the precedents at Category:Diplomatic_incidents. Jokestress (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. KzKrann (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "United Airlines Flight 663" is merely a trivia answer to the question of when the "case of the diplomat smoking in the bathroom" occurred. This could and should be mentioned under Embassy of Qatar in Washington, D.C.. It's definitely a WP:NOTNEWS thing that has no historical significance. Every once in awhile, there's a "strange news" story about a plane making an emergency landing because someone heard a loud ticking noise, or there was a belligerent passenger, or there was a strange smell that seemed like gasoline, etc. WP:AIRCRASH makes suggestions for appropriate places to refer to emergency landings occasioned by a false alarm. Mandsford (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete and merge cant mention every flight on here. in the lead it says that this is a flight from X to Y onward to Z. really not notable for it. That said the info is notable and as mandsford said it can be merger elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)
• Keep- The amount of fury over this incident, and the potential diplomatic repercussions, push it past a simple news story into something encyclopedic. And as long as the gentleman in question isn't mentioned in the article by name, there are no WP:BLP1E concerns. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A poor title is not cause for deletion. Some of the deletes reference that airplane flights are non-notable. I don't think anyone is claiming the flight is notable, but rather the diplomatic incident. I would say the near expulsion of a diplomat by the state department (stopped only by his timely departure from the United States) is notable. Also, I think Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) applies much more than WP:BLP1E, as the latter is about biographies.--Banana (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article's title is Wikipedia convention for accidents and incidents on commercial airliners in the US (see this page). As many people have pointed out, flights with incidents are relatively common. Few of these incidents are notable enough to make the front page of the New York Times on two consecutive days, as this one was. Jokestress (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My reasoning can be found on the article's talk page, but in a nutshell, this article is not about a notable event in history. Despite one editor adding citations for dozens of news articles, no justification has been made about the actual importance of this issue in history, nor any explanation for why the 34 other cases of security-related flight diversions since Jan 1 of this year alone don't each have an article. Also as I said elsewhere, it may be the case that this incident deserves a mention on an article about airline security, or even an article about journalistic ethics and the dangers of sensationalism in live coverage of news events, but it does not deserve its own article. Janus303 (talk) 04:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the WP:ALLORNOTHING argument. If any of the other 2010 flight diversions have been the subject of this much news coverage and analysis, they should have articles as well. Attempts to downplay the event's significance as simply "a man smoking on a plane" do not reflect the way the national media sees its significance. Jokestress (talk) 06:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 34 other cases didn't cause a diplomat to leave the country.--Banana (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For the same reasons enunciated by Janus303. In addition, I see this as but another example of how Wikipedia is sliding into the abyss of agenda journalism. We are supposed to be trying to build a world-wide encyclopedia that has a stellar reputation for not only accuracy, impartiality and a good sense of what kind of news is indeed "fit to print," but which also has long-term notability. Right now, we are ignoring many of the guidelines that were set down, to help us to achieve the goal of having an encyclopedia with a high degree of credibility. I find sensationalist journalism not only repugnant, but also highly distortional when it comes to an honest and complete portrayal of history. EditorASC (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not clear what agenda you think is reflected in the coverage of this event by the New York Times, Washington Post, Fox News, Wall Street Journal, etc. The article appears to be an accurate summary of the incident and the issues raised by it. It meets all the general notability guidelines and has been the subject of continued analysis in major news outlets. What in the article do you consider sensationalist or part of an agenda? Your argument and the others above which characterize the incident as not newsworthy or trivial constitute bullet 4 at WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jokestress (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "However, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability – particularly for living individuals known for one event (WP:BLP1E). For example, routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article." One can dredge up a hoard of "it's a slow news day" articles on trivial subjects, most of the time. Lotsa links doesn't prove anything other than we are beginning to worship trivial tabloidism in Wikipedia. I cannot think of a better example of tabloid journalism, than this piece of "notable" trash. EditorASC (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the diplomatic issues here, this is hardly "tabloid". If this were just some random person who had done this, then certainly this would fall under the not news policy. However, given that there's a wider scope to the effects of this then just the initial story, it hardly seems fair to call it "tabloid". Umbralcorax (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. What does being a "Diplomat" mean? An ambassador for one's country. And now, Mohammed al-Madadi is embarrassed by his sophomoric behaviour. He should be embarrassed, and so should Qatar. Let us hope that his career representing his country is over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie1960 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia doesn't exist for the purpose of embarrassing or shaming people into changing their behavior. That's not a legitimate reason to keep this article. Janus303 (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have moved the above two comments from the top of the page to the bottom so the closing admin can easily see how the discussion developed.--Banana (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to United Airlines article, the diplomat being involved and the political fall-out mean that the incident should be mentioned there. It is not sufficiently notable to sustain its own article. Mjroots (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Mjroots. I'm not sure that this rises to the standard under accidents and incidents since the airframe was not involved and there were no injuries. If this merits an article, then we are saying that any reports of smoking in the head are notable. The other possibility is that any time a diplomat does something wrong, it merits an article. If we accept those as support for not be a one time event, then do we extend it for politicians and actors? Bottom line is that it causes a bigger problem by having a separate article. In this case merge into the airline. In the long run this should be included mainly in the article for the individual, if they are notable with a pointer and brief mention in the article for the place where it happened. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:AIRCRASH standards. Just because the news covered it does not mean that it is worthy of of Wikipedia article....Maybe this belongs on Wikinews.Spikydan1 (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:AIRCRASH. Slow news day event of some guy smoking in the bathroom. Crum375 (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per Mjroots, it's not clear that WP:AIRCRASH is applicable, because it was not created to anticipate an incident of this type. We routinely cover non-fatal incidents like this one, as well as ones that do not involve a crash (near misses, etc.). The Cargolux Flight 7933 article had similar traffic to this article when the incident occurred. Readers will continue to seek out information about this incident, and it seems this is too much information to merge onto the United Airlines page. I believe the standard by which this should be judged in terms of notability is Category:Diplomatic_incidents. We cover both Krushchev's shoe-banging incident and Kuzma's mother as articles. Both are too detailed to explain in his bio, but both merit explanation. The last shoe-related incident in the Middle East was also brought up for deletion with the same objections: "Wikipedia is not a newspaper," "WP:BLP1E" etc. That article now only averages 3 views a day since it survived AfD, but it is still valuable and useful to the project. Jokestress (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also do not see how WP:AIRCRASH applies, as this essay appears to be written to distinguish between routine and major aviation accidents. The article is about a diplomatic incident, with the spark happening to occur on a plane. I am basing my keep vote! off of WP:EVENT, and the impact I believe this event had on the diplomatic relations between the United States and Quatar. --Banana (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per User:Jokestress above. As pointed out, WP:AIRCRASH is not a guideline and so its use as a !vote rationale should be avoided. Merging into United Airlines is not an overly practical solution because of the way its incidents and accidents section is formed. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above.David V Houston (talk) 13:44, 18 April 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.