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. Comments since the relist show a consensus that there is sufficient coverage of this incident to make it notable.
RL0919 (
talk) 15:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Hardly noteworthy for a mention in Wikipedia and certainly not noteworthy for a stand-alone article. Wikipedia is not a place for trivial news stories. Contested PROD
MilborneOne (
talk) 21:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - For a Canadian incident, the sources include international (Japan, U.S., Australia). Notability is established.
XavierItzm (
talk) 00:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete – 'Trivial news story' is a good description. Is there any sign of enduring coverage either? --
Deeday-UK (
talk) 11:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - classic case of
WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Trivial incident, no lasting effects. The news media covered it for its novelty, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. -
Ahunt (
talk) 12:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper.
LefcentrerightTalk(plz ping) 14:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. After revisiting the article, I have come to the conclusion that it should be included.
LefcentrerightTalk(plz ping) 12:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: I have reviewed you changes and, while that has improved the article and is appreciated, it has not changed the basic issue that the story behind it is
WP:NOTNEWS. We are in "cat stuck in tree - rescued by fire dept" territory here. Sure it made the newspapers, it still doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. -
Ahunt (
talk) 01:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Interesting perspective. This incident uncovered an international smuggling ring and produced 8 arrests and at least one conviction (3 year sentence) along with worldwide coverage and Terror alerts for customs around the world: but you compare this to a cat in a tree? Sigh... Of course I disagree.
Lightburst (
talk) 01:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Coomment stuffing the article with citations still doesnt indicate significant courage, it still looks like a local new story with little effect or coverage in the rest of the world.
MilborneOne (
talk) 16:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Begoon: You are right that we are not the news. This particular incident had international coverage and necessitated airline changes around the world.
Lightburst (
talk) 20:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep I have read the article and believe it is a notable case because its the first of its kind, and it causes them to reveal their airport security. This has revealed a security threat as anyone can impersonate someone else wearing one of these masks.
DreamFocus 06:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Yes, this was a noteworthy event. I am basing my vote primarily on the significant coverage of this event by
South China Morning Post and
Associated Press. !Vote by
User:BehindtheKeys - the !vote is on the bottom of the article so I moved it here for the editor.
Keep per persuasive arguments by
Lightburst. Pithy delete !votes citing
WP:NOTNEWS without elaboration are not persuasive. ~
Kvng (
talk) 15:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)reply
COmment Presumable because anybody reading the article would see the NOTNEWS angle fairly clearly so doesnt really need elaboration of the obvious. Clearly not noteworthy for a standalone article despite the citation stuffing.
MilborneOne (
talk) 16:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)reply
@
MilborneOne:"Citation stuffing" is a baseless claim which tells me you did not look at the article.
WP:HEY. It is quite obvious to the readers that the added citations were for information regarding:
@
MilborneOne:Lightburst and others have made some very respectable
improvements to the article since you nominated it and your position is that this is citation stuffing? SMH. ~
Kvng (
talk) 17:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment please assume good faith in others, saying that others "clearly did not read the article" is not clever and probably worth an apology.
MilborneOne (
talk) 17:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Seems like a trivial newspaper story that is not worthy of a stand alone article in an encyclopedia. -
Samf4u (
talk) 20:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - Due to expansions made since the original nomination. Whoever ends up closing this should also keep in mind the improvement that was made to the article over the course of the deletion discussion.
Patiodweller (
talk) 13:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Minor NEWS event without lasting coverage or significance.
Reywas92Talk 17:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - having reviewed the now-rewritten article, I still contend that this is just a
WP:NOTNEWS event, not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -
Ahunt (
talk) 17:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Routine, dime-a-dozen crime, regardless of the DHS overreaction. Not on a par with the
Essex lorry deaths.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 18:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment I want to reiterate the delete !vote I cast above before more sources had been added to the article - in spite of the
WP:HEY, this still fails
WP:NOTNEWS (minor spattering of coverage around the time of the incident, minor spattering of coverage around the time of conviction). It's not enduringly notable.
SportingFlyerT·C 00:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment This is silly and a waste of bytes, but I will play too. I want to reiterate the Keep !vote I cast above. We are all now aware of the delete !vote by SportingFlyer above (twice) and the subsequent deletion review started by SportingFlyer, which overturned the Keep AfD result based on this article's improvements. Perhaps we can get some Encyclopedia building work done soon. :)
Lightburst (
talk) 01:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep The number of major newspapers reporting on this incident can't be ignored so easily. Furthermore, I would say that the worldwide GEOSCOPE coverage puts it over the top.
Hko2333 (
talk) 19:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
KeepWP:NOTNEWS is just supposed to keep out routine stuff like the daily weather or celebrity gossip but this is different – an unusual and high-impact event which was widely reported internationally by respectable and substantial media. Notability does not expire and so we're good.
Andrew D. (
talk) 11:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Passes GNG easily. discussion seems to revolve around NOTNEWS and similar. Issues 1, 3, and 4 of NOTNEWS obviously don't apply. Issue 2, which is basically saying "needs SIGCOV, not routine", I believe is satisfied/dealt with by the large number of sources reporting on it in detail. and seriously, everyone needs to chill.
Hydromania (
talk) 22:08, 6 November 2019 (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.
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. Comments since the relist show a consensus that there is sufficient coverage of this incident to make it notable.
RL0919 (
talk) 15:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Hardly noteworthy for a mention in Wikipedia and certainly not noteworthy for a stand-alone article. Wikipedia is not a place for trivial news stories. Contested PROD
MilborneOne (
talk) 21:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - For a Canadian incident, the sources include international (Japan, U.S., Australia). Notability is established.
XavierItzm (
talk) 00:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete – 'Trivial news story' is a good description. Is there any sign of enduring coverage either? --
Deeday-UK (
talk) 11:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - classic case of
WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Trivial incident, no lasting effects. The news media covered it for its novelty, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. -
Ahunt (
talk) 12:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper.
LefcentrerightTalk(plz ping) 14:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. After revisiting the article, I have come to the conclusion that it should be included.
LefcentrerightTalk(plz ping) 12:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: I have reviewed you changes and, while that has improved the article and is appreciated, it has not changed the basic issue that the story behind it is
WP:NOTNEWS. We are in "cat stuck in tree - rescued by fire dept" territory here. Sure it made the newspapers, it still doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. -
Ahunt (
talk) 01:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Interesting perspective. This incident uncovered an international smuggling ring and produced 8 arrests and at least one conviction (3 year sentence) along with worldwide coverage and Terror alerts for customs around the world: but you compare this to a cat in a tree? Sigh... Of course I disagree.
Lightburst (
talk) 01:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Coomment stuffing the article with citations still doesnt indicate significant courage, it still looks like a local new story with little effect or coverage in the rest of the world.
MilborneOne (
talk) 16:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Begoon: You are right that we are not the news. This particular incident had international coverage and necessitated airline changes around the world.
Lightburst (
talk) 20:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep I have read the article and believe it is a notable case because its the first of its kind, and it causes them to reveal their airport security. This has revealed a security threat as anyone can impersonate someone else wearing one of these masks.
DreamFocus 06:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Yes, this was a noteworthy event. I am basing my vote primarily on the significant coverage of this event by
South China Morning Post and
Associated Press. !Vote by
User:BehindtheKeys - the !vote is on the bottom of the article so I moved it here for the editor.
Keep per persuasive arguments by
Lightburst. Pithy delete !votes citing
WP:NOTNEWS without elaboration are not persuasive. ~
Kvng (
talk) 15:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)reply
COmment Presumable because anybody reading the article would see the NOTNEWS angle fairly clearly so doesnt really need elaboration of the obvious. Clearly not noteworthy for a standalone article despite the citation stuffing.
MilborneOne (
talk) 16:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)reply
@
MilborneOne:"Citation stuffing" is a baseless claim which tells me you did not look at the article.
WP:HEY. It is quite obvious to the readers that the added citations were for information regarding:
@
MilborneOne:Lightburst and others have made some very respectable
improvements to the article since you nominated it and your position is that this is citation stuffing? SMH. ~
Kvng (
talk) 17:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment please assume good faith in others, saying that others "clearly did not read the article" is not clever and probably worth an apology.
MilborneOne (
talk) 17:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Seems like a trivial newspaper story that is not worthy of a stand alone article in an encyclopedia. -
Samf4u (
talk) 20:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - Due to expansions made since the original nomination. Whoever ends up closing this should also keep in mind the improvement that was made to the article over the course of the deletion discussion.
Patiodweller (
talk) 13:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Minor NEWS event without lasting coverage or significance.
Reywas92Talk 17:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - having reviewed the now-rewritten article, I still contend that this is just a
WP:NOTNEWS event, not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -
Ahunt (
talk) 17:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Routine, dime-a-dozen crime, regardless of the DHS overreaction. Not on a par with the
Essex lorry deaths.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 18:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment I want to reiterate the delete !vote I cast above before more sources had been added to the article - in spite of the
WP:HEY, this still fails
WP:NOTNEWS (minor spattering of coverage around the time of the incident, minor spattering of coverage around the time of conviction). It's not enduringly notable.
SportingFlyerT·C 00:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment This is silly and a waste of bytes, but I will play too. I want to reiterate the Keep !vote I cast above. We are all now aware of the delete !vote by SportingFlyer above (twice) and the subsequent deletion review started by SportingFlyer, which overturned the Keep AfD result based on this article's improvements. Perhaps we can get some Encyclopedia building work done soon. :)
Lightburst (
talk) 01:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep The number of major newspapers reporting on this incident can't be ignored so easily. Furthermore, I would say that the worldwide GEOSCOPE coverage puts it over the top.
Hko2333 (
talk) 19:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
KeepWP:NOTNEWS is just supposed to keep out routine stuff like the daily weather or celebrity gossip but this is different – an unusual and high-impact event which was widely reported internationally by respectable and substantial media. Notability does not expire and so we're good.
Andrew D. (
talk) 11:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Passes GNG easily. discussion seems to revolve around NOTNEWS and similar. Issues 1, 3, and 4 of NOTNEWS obviously don't apply. Issue 2, which is basically saying "needs SIGCOV, not routine", I believe is satisfied/dealt with by the large number of sources reporting on it in detail. and seriously, everyone needs to chill.
Hydromania (
talk) 22:08, 6 November 2019 (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.