Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boston Logan Airport Fake Bomb 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 delete. --Core desat 00:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Boston Logan Airport Fake Bomb Incident

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

See Articles for deletion/Star Simpson. WP:NOT states that a news event like this belongs on Wikinews instead of Wikipedia if the event does not have "historical notability". 17Drew 17:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete A1, or Delete per nom. This isn't a stub, it's a single sentence which reads like a headline. If a legitimate article or stub can be created about this event, recreate. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 17:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom (not speedy). Wikipedia is not the news; nothing really happened here anyway. Shalom Hello 17:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. WP:NOT. --Evb-wiki 18:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT --Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 19:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete passing news story. MarkBul 19:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As per above issues with it being more closely related to news than an encyclopedia article. Liempt 21:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikinews if the information in the article isn't there already. It might not belong on Wikipedia, but how about an attempt at legitimate information preservation? LaMenta3 21:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * They already have an article. And it's far more than two lines, so I don't see what transwiking would constitute doing.  17Drew 22:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I was just saying if there was anything about it that COULD be transwiki'd, it should be. As this isn't the case, then delete until/unless this becomes something bigger. LaMenta3 00:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Not even a drop of spittle in the river of history. This is yesterday's news... or at least last Friday's news.  Mandsford 00:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * While I think it makes much more sense to have an article on the event than one on the person, I must also support the delete position for this article, just as I did with Star Simpson. This very easily could have turned into the sort of event that would be notable for this project's purposes, but it didn't (or hasn't so far). It looks like the story is essentially over, so there should be no article. If we get to the point where the criminal charges are decided and something interesting happens, we can reconsider the decision. Erechtheus 04:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge and redirect without deleting to Star Simpson due to widespread news coverage and newness of the incident that prevents us from sufficiently determining the importance at this point. Also, I have expanded the article considerably from its previous condition.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If we can't determine that the event is important, the article should be deleted. I might have a tremendously notable life, but that does not mean I get to have an article until I meet that notability standard. Erechtheus 22:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Either keep and merge in Star Simpson or merge both with the 2007 Boston Mooninite scare Artw 19:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The arguments at the article on Simpson are that it belongs under the incident, rather than the person. It is notable as showing the irrationality of contemporary paranoia, but as an incident--not about her specifically. DGG (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - This event, while it did generate a lot of instant media attention, is not likely to have any long lasting notoriety or importance. This incident is not likely to set any legal president or cause a change in security procedures at Logan.  In the long term it will be no more notable then other airport security violations (think Monica Emmerson and the child’s sippy cup incident in June 2007). Hardnfast 14:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - not nearly as noteworthy as the 2007 Boston Mooninite scare, and certainly not as likely to stand out as a notable incident months or years from now. Maybe this could be a footnote in some article about suspected bomb scares and hoaxes in 2007, but I'm not excited about it.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not a noteworthy event.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 20:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for various reasons stated above. When story first broke it appeared to be a pretty major event, but it was merely a strange incident. -_Coffee and TV 20:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep if Star Simpson is deleted; if Star Simpson is kept, merge to that article. I agree with DGG that the incident is notable, but readers would be more likely to search for the protagonist's name than for this title, so it would be better for the information to be at Star Simpson.  Nevertheless, it would be better to keep it at this title than to expunge it entirely. JamesMLane t c 21:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Star Simpson herself is almost certainly not notable. In the event an article is kept, I'd suggest this is the one to keep and that Star Simpson should then become a redirect to this article, solving your search concern. I still don't think this event is notable at this point, though. Erechtheus 03:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. No lasting notability here, just another news article.  We are not a general news archival service.   Bur nt sau ce  21:53, 26 September 2007 (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.