Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel Bacos


 * 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. A strong policy discussion here, though a few unnecessary segues. I read the rough consensus finding that the event was significant enough and Bacos's role sufficiently substantial to except the article from BLP1E.-- Kubigula (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Michel Bacos

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails BLP1E. The actual event is covered, and covered well, at Operation Entebbe. There are no sources about this person outside of ones discussing him in relation to the hijacking and the raid. Nableezy 04:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. BLP1E states that: "'If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented .... a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.'"  Such is the case here.  The event is without question significant.  His role is substantial, and well-documented, and the coverage is persistent over time (see the documentation in these 104 books from 1976-2010, these 19 new articles between 1994 and 2011, as well as additional coverage on various ghits.  In addition, though they are related, there are three events here -- the hijacking (including the captain's refusal to leave his Jewish passengers), the captain's later suspension and admonishment by Air France, and the captain's later award for heroism.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a reason why the example that BLP1E gives as an appropriate exemption to the rule is John Hinckley. In that case, the person is the central figure in the event, and he himself has been subject of numerous in-depth works. That isnt the case here. There are no in-depth biographies of the person, and he was not the central figure of the event.  nableezy  - 05:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a reason that the rule clearly states what the standard is for the exemption. The reason?  So editors don't mis-state the rule.  The rule is, as indicated above, "the event is significant", "the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented", and "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources."  This clearly meets that.  (As does Hinckley's).
 * We of course don't take the example used in a rule, and from the example concoct an entire new set of criteria that is different from the criteria stated in the rule itself. That's like the following:  "Rule:  A citizen if the US is a person who is a citizen of the US, such as President Obama".  Nableezy "interpretation" -- The reason the rule gave Obama as an example is that to be a citizen of the US, one must be President of the US".  Clearly, that's not how it works.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That is quite the exaggeration you made, some would even say that it an absurd way to read my comments. If you could write a biographical article on the subject I wouldnt have a problem with it. The thing is, you cant. And you cant because sources havent covered him. For example, when was he born? In what city? Where did he go to school, when did he become a pilot, how long was he flying prior to the hijacking? The article is not a biography of Bacos, it is simply a recounting of the hijacking, which already is covered in the article on the hijacking. The number of books that contain the words Michel Bacos is not indicative of the notability of Michel Bacos. What matters is how they cover him. They dont cover him in any depth at all. Which is why we dont have a biography of Becos, we have another article, a sub-par one I might add, on an event that already has a well written article. But the most important part of this comment is this; please dont attribute arguments to me that I have not made. It is intellectually dishonest for you to do so. Thank you for your cooperation.  nableezy  - 10:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You again ignore the wp guideline. And simply make up your own.  We follow the wp guideline, however, and therefore consider the person notable if "the event is significant", "the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented", and "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources."  Which is clearly the case here.  We don't follow some made-up guideline you concoct in your effort to delete the article, along the lines of "the article must indicate his date of birth" (though the article actually does reflect that, now), or "the article must indicate how long he was flying prior to the event".  By having editors follow wp guidelines, and not concoct their own, we lessen the possibility of POV-creep.


 * I note that nom made similar nominations to delete articles for BLP1E in the past 6 months at Articles for deletion/Walid Husayin and Articles for deletion/Asmaa Mahfouz, and that those articles were kept per community consensus. Nom may wish to reconsider whether his understanding of the guideline is at odds with that of the community consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with Epeefleche and he meets WP:GNG because of the coverage he received.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 09:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Epeefleche and Nipson - this individual meets WP:GNG, and is a central figure in the event. The fact that he was later reprimanded as a consequence of his heroic actions is a separately covered event and therefore this person is not notable for a single event. The Jerusalem Post article from 2006 shows persistent coverage . Marokwitz (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep At least two of the hijackers "two Germans from the German Revolutionary Cells—Wilfried Böse and Brigitte Kuhlmann" have their own articles for their involvement in this affair. In light of that, how can you justify not giving this pilot his own article? Notorious is ok but heroic is not?  Bidyone (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC) — Bidyone (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * delete There is nothing in this article that doesn't belong in Operation Entebbe. This article isn't a biography at all: where are the details about the rest of his life, his education, his family, his career? When and where was he born? Is he still alive? If not, when did he die? Is there anything he is notable for other than this incident and its aftermath? (By the way, the argument above about "heroic" or "notorious" is irrelevant - we have many articles about such loveable characters as Adolf Hitler, Adolf Eichmann, Islam Karimov, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Alisher Usmanov, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and many others. The two Germans have articles because they founded RZ, so they are notable for more than just this incident.) Why single out just the captain - the rest of the crew also showed the same courage in staying behind? And, I might add, if you want to honour this man, he deserves a much better article than this pile of sloppy editing. If a proper biography can be written answering these questions, and showing why he is notable for something in addition to this incident, then it can be kept, otherwise it should be deleted, with any useful and relevant info being added to Operation Entebbe. --NSH001 (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't want to dismiss the bravery of Michel Bacos but his contribution in this affair was essentially passive. Had he done something exceptionally skillfull, or taken actions which substantively affected the outcome of the event, it might be different, but logically his part belongs in the Entebbe story. I don't think anyone is suggesting he be written out, and as a user that is where I should expect to find him, and if I were searching for him in Wikipedia that is where I ought to be directed. As pointed out, there isn't really a biography of him as such and no reason has been advanced for his having one independently of the account of this event, so users gain nothing from having to click through from one article to another. The coverage of him in independent sources results from the fact that he happened to be the unfortunate pilot who was flying that plane, and the logic of the not inherited and one event rules is that he should not be considered independently notable. --AJHingston (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Notes to closing admin:
 * 1) In accordance to Notability (people), "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate."
 * 2) Bacos was awarded the National Order of the Legion of Honour, which is the highest french award. According to notability guidelines, a person is notable if "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". Marokwitz (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 *  further note according to Legion of Honour, there are approximately 94,000 members of this order. --NSH001 (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Receipt of major awards from multiple countries, with extensive and continuing coverage in about two dozen reliable and verifiable sources in the years after the hijacking more than exceeds any basic standard of notability. Notability has nothing to do with being "skillful" (let alone being "exceptionally" so) and that his actions might somehow be deemed passive does not diminish notability. There have been dozens of major hijackings over the decades, and few pilots other than Bacos have articles, because most of them played no ongoing role and received no meaningful coverage about their role. Wikipedia's definition of notability rests on coverage in appropriate sources, and there has been no meaningful rebuttal of these sources. Alansohn (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * comment although the article has improved, it is still nothing more than a report of the event and its aftermath. Everything in this article can be, and mostly already is, covered in Operation Entebbe. It still fails BLP1E. --NSH001 (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Where are the sources that discuss Bacos, and not this event? Why isn't there any detail about the controversy surrounding his disciplining by Air France? (Surely there must have been some controversy?) Where are the sources talking about the effect on his life and his family? Where are the basic biographical details? I don't see how there can be "meaningful coverage" to justify a separate article, unless at least some of these questions can be answered. --NSH001 (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Epeeflech, Marokwitz, Alansohn, Notability (people). Jayjg (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Id like to make one note before I bid you all farewell. I dont think WP:BIO1E applies, what counts here is BLP1E. If there is some evidence that this person is no longer living I would withdraw the nomination, but as no such evidence exists I think we have to recognize that the standards of BLP1E, part of a policy (WP:BLP), which are a bit more stringent than BIO1E, which is part of a guideline (WP:Notability (people)), are what counts here. I dont think there is evidence that the subject meets any reasonable interpretation of the requirements of BLP1E, and the one offered above by Ep would essentially turn that part of the policy into nothing as all people notable for a single event are covered in the coverage of that event.  nableezy  - 05:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You've mis-stated what I quoted the guideline as requiring. It is not--as you suggest--that I said that the exception applies if "people ... are covered in the coverage of that event".  Instead, the wp guideline considers the person notable if "the event is significant", "the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented", and "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources."  Which is clearly the case here.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Epeefleche and Alansohn. The taking of Entebbe was a major historic event.  The subject's role was instantly recognized as substantial.  He was awarded France's highest honor, and one of the two top honors given to good Gentiles by the State of Israel. The 1-shot rule carves out a solid exception for well-known heroes who receive major accolades, and whose lives are captued on film, in books, texts, etc., as in this case.  I can't see how he's not notable. Bearian (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Operation Entebbe. I can see the argument to his significance in the event, but I fail to see where the article subject meets the basic notability criteria. None of the sources listed in the article, from what I can tell, makes him the "subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The subject of the sources listed revolve around Operation Entebbe or the hijacking event, not explicitly Bacos.  Barkeep   Chat 16:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read Notability. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Marokwitz (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * True enough, but you'd be pretty hard pressed to say that any of the sources listed would qualify as significant coverage of Bacos. Outside of this source, Bacos' name is never brought up more than 3 times, usually singularly. I would argue he borderlines on just a trivial mention on a particular event in the rest of the sources.  Barkeep   Chat 18:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I’ll say precisely what is on my mind here. This one isn’t even close. Mirroring the comments of some of the above, this story was highly notable and this aspect of it is clearly sufficiently notable in its own right. I think too many AfDs related to terrorism are being brought up unnecessarily and this may be a phenomenon borne out some editors trying to inject their own personal feelings and sympathies into Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What the hell does some editors trying to inject their own personal feelings and sympathies into Wikipedia mean? What "aspect" of the event is this supposed biography covering?  nableezy  - 18:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * After reading your splendid intensive “hell” here, I looked above and can clearly see that you seem fond of confrontational behavior on Wikipedia, with language like “absurd way to read my comments” and “exaggeration you made”. The enversion of Wikipedia doesn’t need so much wikidrama. And that’s just this page. I hope you grok the mix of what you’re reading on this page, take it to heart, and dial the thermostat down a bit. Goodbye and happy editing. Greg L (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia also does not need editors making wild accusations and then refusing to back them up. Your line on editors trying to inject their own personal feelings and sympathies into Wikipedia is wildly inappropriate and vastly more uncivil than anything I have written here, including what the hell. You have attributed motives to others and have refused to provide evidence. Thanks for that, I very much appreciate having such ludicrous accusations made against me. Though I find it much more satisfying when a user has the decency to provide evidence for their statements.  nableezy  - 19:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So, after that tirade, the very next two edits you made at Talk:Geography of Israel was this ∆ edit to prove me all wrong?? Can you make this any easier for me? I’m just saying that it is unfortunate that Wikipedia is such a battleground for this sort of thing. This AfD is part of that wikidrama, it wasn’t a close call, and it is all quite tedious. Your edit history, which I just now looked at seems as if you are a single-purpose editor and I see you are currently the subject of an ANI request for enforcement. Greg L (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, you just keep going. Explain exactly what you mean by editors trying to inject their own personal feelings and sympathies into Wikipedia as it relates to this AfD. Not what you think if an edit to another talk page on a completely unrelated topic, but what you meant by that inflammatory comment. And unless you you would like me to comment on your edit history, I kindly request you not comment on mine. It is both irrelevant to this AfD and it is inaccurate. Bye.  nableezy  - 20:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Please note that off-wiki canvassing for this AfD is taking place here. Bidyone's !vote has been copied and pasted from that site. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably the other way around. User:Bidyone's !vote was posted one day earlier. Marokwitz (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The Michel Bacos article is not a Michel Bacos article at all. It is just describing events pertaining to the Air France Flight 139 article. In fact the reason for delete seems even obvious to those who voted to keep.  They all argued along the line of "this story was highly notable ..."  I agree this story is notable. That is why this story has an article.  We are just arguing it shouldn't have two articles. If anyone feels that Michel Bacos deserves an article, then by all means write one. The current Michel Bacos article is currently 100% pertaining to Operation Entebbe and nothing else. Poyani (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note. This is an invalid deletion reason. Deletion is based on whether the person is notable or not for his own article. And according to Wikipedia notability policies he certainly is, based on the ongoing coverage by reliable sources from 1976 to the present day, and winning major awards. Bacos was awarded, among the rest, the National Order of the Legion of Honour, which is the highest french award. According to notability guidelines, a person is notable if "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". Marokwitz (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, that this is, in principle, a valid deletion reason, is recognised under Criteria for speedy deletion A10: "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic." If it weren't for the "recently created" provision, it would, in my opinion, be a candidate for speedy deletion, except of course that the title would indeed be a plausible redirect to Operation Entebbe. I hope someone can write a proper article on Michel Bacos. That no-one has yet managed to do so indicates that the necessary sources do not exist, so it should be deleted or redirected. --NSH001 (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Marokwitz - what I described is a Content Fork which is a reason for deletion. The person is clearly not notable since no one here can even write an article on him. There simply isn't any information about this person aside from his involvement in Air France Flight 139 Hijack. Poyani (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are talking about. Aside from his involvement in Air France Flight 139 Hijack, the article contains information about his personal life, awards that he received, suspension by Air France, films that he was featured in. And in any case the contents of this article are irrelevant to deletion. A person who had a major role in a significant historical event, is covered with non trivial mentions in reliable sources for decades, received multiple major and well known awards, and was featured in several movies, is automatically notable for his own article, period. Marokwitz (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Markowitz. Broccolo (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Michel Bacos is far less notable than Jason Dahl (who is only a redirect) using any metric. Describing Operation Entebbe as a "significant historical event" is a serious stretch. Describing his part in it as a "major role" is even more of a stretch. The notion that he is "a person who had a major role in a significant historical event" is simply astonishing! Poyani (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Operation Entebbe. Generally the Legion d'Honneur would qualify him for his own article, but since there is nothing here that isn't about Operation Entebbe, I think it's a WP:IAR situation. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The claim "there is nothing here that isn't about Operation Entebbe" is plainly false, if you care to read the article. So we should not ignore all rules. Marokwitz (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Other than his marital status, his city of residence, and the number of grandchildren he has, what is there that is not about Operation Entebbe? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:08, 28 June 2011 (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.