Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Canada Flight 018 Stowaway incident


 * 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. North America1000 10:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Air Canada masked stowaway case
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is about a person who took a flight to Canada and claimed refugee status in 2010. He was one of 28,630 people to make this claim in Canada that year. The only thing unusual about the story was that he wore a silicon mask on the flight for reasons that remain unexplained. Due to the confidentiality of refugee claims in Canada there is no information on who he is, where he is from, why he was making a claim or any other details. The article fails WP:NOTNEWS and also WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Ahunt (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation, WikiProject Airlines and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I was a delete two years ago at the other AfD - the final I is now lowercase, so it doesn't appear as the second nomination - but find myself agreeing with the keep arguments there after a second review (mostly Levivich's weak keep demonstrating sustained coverage, which occurred after I took the one to DRV on NOTNEWS grounds trying to get it deleted. I don't remember that at all.) I agree this isn't what I'd call "100% notable," but it's probably over the line. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep While this story has gotten new coverage after 9 years since it's initial reporting, it's more of a burst of news and doesn't really count as WP:LASTING. The story is unusual and kind of head turning, and I would not agree that this is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL nor do I agree with WP:NOTNEWS. The news reporting shows there was more to this story and had ongoing pieces to it. Nevertheless, the story is only a little bit WP:BROAD and a little bit WP:DIVERSE and it appears the story has now come to a resolution, and the initial event isn't very big and probably worth deleting. However, I was initially going to say weak delete but I feel a weak keep due to arrests occurring indicating this news story had broader implications beyond the incident itself indicates it has significance, passes WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT. Tautomers (T C) 23:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - This isn't a run-of-the-mill minor incident, and, as Tautomers mentioned, it has significance, passes WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT. It thus warrants a stand-alone article. BilCat (talk) 08:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, fails WP:GNG. Is there any sign of enduring coverage either? lassic 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.Seems like a trivial newspaper story that is not worthy of a stand alone article in an encyclopedia. Minor NEWS event without lasting coverage or significance.--Miamiaim (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. A clear-cut case of WP:NOTNEWS, with no sign of lasting coverage or impact other than on the protagonists. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per the citations provided in Levivich's weak keep in the first AfD. This establishes all five major elements of WP:GNG.   I'm not really sure why people are citing WP:NOTNEWS as a reason for deletion; the article is clearly not 1. original reporting, 2. written in an unencyclopedic tone, 3. overly emphasizing any of the individual personalities involved in the incident, or 4. celebrity gossip or a diary, which are the four elements listed under NOTNEWS.  WP:NOTNEWS is not a valid reason to delete because of the four elements of that policy that could apply here are #2, and the enduring notability of the incident are demonstrated by the repeated, long-term reporting in cited by Levivich in multiple reliable sources. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep This AfD is an obvious misapplication of WP:NOTNEWS that was litigated previously per RecycledPixels above. The argument that because this is one of a large N that makes it less notable is fallacious. A larger population means more, not less, notable examples would be expected. For example, a larger country should have more notable people. The fact that we don't know who the man is because of privacy concerns is irrelevant too. And the argument that this case is "only" unusual because of the mask contradicts the argument that this is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. In fact, because the mask use was so unique, it caused CBSA to issue an internal alert that was leaked to CNN, so this became an international story. We have in-depth follow-up coverage in multiple reliable sources on both the initial investigation, the asylum hearings in Canada, and the arrest, trial, and conviction of ground personnel in Hong Kong. I have added several more of these refs to the article. So this AfD should be closed because the discussion above is now moot. Dhaluza (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: I have renamed the page Air Canada Flight 018 stowaway case because the article has been expanded to cover a related series of events, so case is more descriptive than incident. Also fixed capitalization error because "stowaway" is not a proper noun (and to match Greenock stowaways). Dhaluza (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: I have renamed it again to Air Canada masked stowaway case because the flight number is beside the point, while the mask is much more to the point. Dhaluza (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * NOTE - It is not considered good form to move an article while the deletion discussion is still open please do not do it again. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You speak with authority, but in the passive voice. Who considers it not good form? And are you objecting to form or function?
 * WP:DP is silent on page moves during AfD. WP:GD only says to note the move on the AfD, which I did. WP:MV says a scope change is a good reason to move a page. So I don't see any consensus for your assertion that "it is not considered good form to move an article while the deletion discussion is still open." Dhaluza (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To quote "While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD or deletion review discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts." MilborneOne (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also note that using the term "stowaway" in the title is also clearly misleading as the person in question was not actually a stowaway. MilborneOne (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, is your complaint as to form or function? Why did moving the page make the encyclopedia worse? Dhaluza (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also this seems to fit well with the second definition at stowaway: " In other cases, the goal is to enter another country without first obtaining a travel visa or other permission." Dhaluza (talk) 11:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And both South China Morning Post and The New York Times references cited used "stowaway" in their article titles. Dhaluza (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  Sun8908 &#8239;Talk 15:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The nominator's claim that "the only thing unusual about the story was that he wore a silicon mask" seems to indicate that they have no understanding of what notability means on Wikipedia. I also don't understand how this article fails WP:NOTNEWS; it's not original reporting (there is significant coverage of the event from many reliable sources), it's not a news report (the incident happened over a decade ago), and it's obviously not a who's who or a celebrity gossip or diary. -  ZLEA  T \ C 12:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the only thing unique about the Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan is that he was President...and but for the gun, this was just another day.... Dhaluza (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons cited above and at the last AFD. WP:GNG  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep A notable case because its the first of its kind, and it has gotten ample media coverage around the world to pass the general notability guidelines.  D r e a m Focus  20:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily satisfies WP:GNG. Bungstnk (talk) 01:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Opinion If this article survives, I'm considering redirecting this article to List of crimes involving a silicone mask. Do you agree with this? Miamiaim (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree with redirect. You are simply doing by indirection that which the AFD is failing to do by direction.  It is already in that list; your true colors are showing. 7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect is the same as deletion, and since you one of the few people trying to delete it, clear what you are up to.   D r e a m Focus  20:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, a Keep AfD doesn't preclude a merge, and that czn often be an outcome of an AfD. A merge can be proposed after an AfD closes as Keep, but most of the Keep comments are.supporting. a.stand-alone article. Further, too much content would lost in a list article entry, so I don't see that as a viable alternative. Finally, a sock farm has attempted to redirect this article to various list articles on several occasions without discussion, so continued efforts along that will only invite more scrutiny. BilCat (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Relisting this is whimsical. The vote was 9 to 3.  There is a "clear consensus" notwithstanding. Ipse dixit doesn't apply.  I can count.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 12:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The relist is also pointless because the original reason for AfD was that this article was about a person. Notwithstanding the rest of that argument, the article has been expanded to be about more than just a person. So there is no reason to continue that discussion. Also there were no delete votes after the expansion. Dhaluza (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Enduring notability of the incident precludes NOTNEWS. Dhaluza makes good points above. Previous AfD consensus adds weight. Large number of reliable sources. --  Green  C  14:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:EVENT and the WP:GNG. WP:NOTNEWS explicitly encourages articles as Air Canada Flight 018 Stowaway incident. Hence strange that some use it against the article. gidonb (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.