Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evo Morales grounding 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Evo Morales grounding incident

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not the news. Once-off incident with no lasting notability. Stifle (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I had split this out from the Edward Snowden article. That article explains a lasting—or at least, ongoing—effect of the grounding: "[Snowden] decided to remain in Russia because whilst he was "considering possibilities for asylum in Latin America, the United States forced down the Bolivian President’s plane." He said that he would travel from Russia if there was no interference from the US government."

As described in the article Aftermath of the global surveillance disclosure, it led to a meeting attended by several presidents: "[...] the presidents of Uruguay, Argentina, Venezuela and Suriname joined Correa and a representative from Brazil, in Cochabamba, Bolivia to discuss the incident. Presidents Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua offered Snowden asylum after the meeting."

This news story (archived copy here) which appeared on Yahoo News on Sunday (six months after the event) calls it "a dramatic international kerfuffle".

WP:PERSISTENCE says "That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable."

WP:N says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." The nomination seems to be saying that this event comes under the part of the What Wikipedia is not policy about "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" (WP:ROUTINE says something similar). As I wrote when contesting his PROD, I don't agree that this resembles those. But even if it did, I believe that it also meets the notability guideline for events. &mdash; rybec   20:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge with Bolivia–United States relations. Not independently notable per WP:EVENT (which says "most ... political news" is "usually not notable"): it may have had consequences in conjunction with other events (the tensions between Morales' administration and the USA; the Snowden affair), but it makes sense to cover it in conjunction with those events. There are no shortage of merge targets: Bolivia–United States relations, Edward_Snowden, Evo Morales. If someone can show that this event specifically had lasting effects it would be notable (a conference a few days later doesn't seem to be a lasting effect, and it only played a small role in the Snowden story - these recent articles from the top of a Google search don't mention it). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment There is some old discussion about this at Talk:Edward_Snowden/Archive_3. Look for the phrase "Morales plane incident" scattered among several sections.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  22:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep as it meets WP:Notability even in the face of WP:NOTNEWS. I have a strong recommendation that it be editorially (i.e. without the prejudice imposed by an AFD) merged to an appropriate article or articles such as those mentioned by  at 11:01, 4 Feburary 2014 (UTC) above.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  22:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep-- notable diplomatic incident.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep – the level of detail is appropriate for such a significant incident, but would be excessive if it was merged into either Edward Snowden (who wasn't even directly involved) or Evo Morales. – Smyth\talk 11:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. The WP:NOTNEWS policy is always misapplied, and this is no exception, as the policy actually says to treat recent events just like older ones.  The GNG is well met.  But in this case, even playing the game of demonstrating exceptional 'enduring' notability, this incident has had a long term effect on the bilateral relations of several nations. Wnt (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This is a major event in the Snowden story (but too big to mention only in that article), and with regard to US-Latin American relations. The effects have only begun to be discussed, although not by US media. Effects reported this summer, such as mass protests in multiple SA countries, are not included in the article, so it may give the impression of a less impactful story. It could be two to three times the current size if editors had time to tell the full story. (Independent editors are in short supply it seems.)   petrarchan47  t  c   20:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I've expanded the article, but there's still some important details that are missing (Role of the United States in the grounding incident, outcome of Evo Morales' lawsuit, etc) -A1candidate (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - major diplomatic incident with multiple countries adn the UN making top-level commentary. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2014 (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.