Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines Flight 1561


 * 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   delete. It's fairly clear, and especially clear from one user's transition from Strong Keep to Delete, that WP:NOTNEWS is the issue here. As pointed out in the discussion, none of the sources are from more than three days after the event. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 1561

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable hijacking. WP:NOTNEWS applies. William 18:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  -William 18:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -William 18:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -William 18:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - has recieved coverage beyond the incident itself. NOTNEWS? then why do wikipedia as a ITN section?--BabbaQ (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - The article is referenced by many dead links. But some of the healthy ones still show very strong notability. When you say this is in accordance with WP:NOTNEWS, I don't see how it reads like a newspaper in the article. Can you please tell why you may think this is non-notable? --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 20:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWSPAPER has nothing to do with "reading like a newspaper". It has to do with a lack of persistent significance of the incident. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a whole 'nother section in the book besides WP:NOTNEWS, your trying to say moreover WP:PERSISTENCE. Which, now that I think of it makes more sense that WP:NOTNEWS. They are not the same thing, which is what I perceive you are saying, but let me say this, WP:NOTNEWS does have something to do with reading like a newspaper. Hence the name. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 23:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:PERSISTENCE; he came, he attempted his hijack, he was hauled off to jail, nothing changed as a result of the incident and it was forgotten a week later by everyone but the lawyers. Fails WP:AIRCRASH, WP:GNG. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - needs cleanup on the sources. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:GNG; once notable always notable as WP:N, notability is not transitory. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But notability is cautioned by WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:PERSISTENCE. An initial "spurt" of news reports, expecially in today's digital age of instant communications, does not automatically confer notability. The event discussed by this article was never notable under the WP:GNG. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't delete this perfectly fine article. It's about an attempted hijacking by a possible terrorist act to the US. A very interesting subject indeed. Someone researching this would want to come here. WP:PERSISTENCE should count to things like a specific prank phone call, it may be news at first, but not later, and this policy would count. But for something like an attempted terrorist attack? WP:IGNORE should apply. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 01:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So it should be kept because WP:ITSUSEFUL? - The Bushranger One ping only 10:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Readers of the encyclopedia come and research things they want to know about. Say they heard about this one attempted hijacking their aunt was on and they would come to Wikipedia to search for this specific flight, only to find it was deleted because everyone else forgot about it. Makes no sense. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * By that standard, the fact Aunt May wrecked her car on the way home from Wal-Mart because she tried to text and drive is notable and deserves an article. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Regardless of whether this article meets WP:GNG on its own, the event seems to be notable enough that if it is decided to delete it, some content from this article should be kept somewhere. I propose that if this article is deleted, some content should be moved into either Islamic extremism in the United States or Death of Osama bin Laden. - Jorgath (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of aircraft hijackings At this moment it fails WP:Persistence. The majority of the text can be trimmed as it is simple narration, which, while sourced, really isn't that notable.  Only the few main points need to stay.  Ravendrop 06:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:PERSISTENCE is for things like a housefire. A housefire may make the news one day, but it won't make news forever (with a few exceptions of course), this would fail WP:PERSISTENCE. But for something like an attempted act of terrorism may not meet WP:PERSISTENCE, but it should still be included. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 19:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I simply fail to understand or agree with your reasoning. (And I see nothing that says that an attempted terrorist act is exempted from persistence).  Hence, why my vote is contrary to your opinion.  Ravendrop 20:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My reasoning is this: if someone who wants to research more about this one attempted hijacking they had heard about, they may go to Wikipedia. However, the article about the hijacking was deleted, because the news about it wasn't persistent. Makes no sense. This is an encyclopedia, it is for people to come and research. What a good example for deletion from WP:PERSISTENCE is this one car crash that no one except family or lawyers know about. American Airlines Flight 1561 is different, it was an attempted terrorist act, succeeded or failed, terrorist acts are very serious and should meet WP:N. If it doesn't, WP:IGNORE it. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:PERSISTENCE applies to everything. If an event does not have persistent coverage, it is not notable. This is an encyclopedia, and therefore we need to write on encyclopedic topics. Wikipedia does not decide whether a WP:EVENT is notable or not; third-party sources do. And the third-party sources here to not establish notability any more than they would for the opening of the Podunkville Farmer's Market featuring Lower Bazoulistan's Largest Tomato - it gets a lot of press at the time, but... - The Bushranger One ping only 23:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, its starting to make sense now. Delete per The Bushranger. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 23:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Firstly, the narrative is conflicting and makes little sense.


 * "Rageh Ahmed Mohammed Al-Murisi (also spelled Rageh Almurisi), allegedly rushed toward the front of the cabin yelling "Allahu Akbar" and attempted to break into the cockpit. On al-Murisi's initial attempt to open the cockpit door, a flight attendant assumed he was looking for a restroom, and directed him to one. After Al-Murisi was informed a second time that the cockpit was not a lavatory, he made eye contact with the crew member, lowered his shoulder, and began ramming the cockpit door."
 * Rageh Almurisi may have been passionate and foolishly impulsive, or tired and emotional and overconfident about the ability of his shoulder ... but a terrorist?
 * Deserved a mention in Wikinews but didn't. On the same day  a 'security threat' leading to a Delta airlines flight being diverted to New Mexico was mentioned in Wikinews, but did not gain a Wikipedia article.
 * The article in dispute should be best described as a superficial incident of no particular consequence, so WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and only temporally notable - WP:NTEMP, and therefore fails WP:PERSISTENCE.
 * - Cablehorn (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC) → Amended - Cablehorn (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.