Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/November 9th, 2010 Southern California Missile Launch


 * 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. Vote-tallying is 50/50, but note has to be taken of the vast array of IP Keeps, presumably drawn here by off-wiki canvassing, practically none of which make any policy-based reasons to keep the article. There are a few reasonable comments in favour of keeping, but they are far outweighed by general consensus that this fails NOTNEWS. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

November 9th, 2010 Southern California Missile Launch

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

This suspected airplane contrail which TV news has speculatively called a missile launch fails the WP:NOTNEWS guidelines. All sources appear speculative and this is unlikely to change in the near future. If the defence department suddenly changes its story then there may be grounds for an article about their confusion. Fæ (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- Fæ (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- Fæ (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete (for now). This has happened several times in the past year, this one happened to get wider news coverage. Fae is right, NOTNEWS. tedder (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As this story developed, it's even more clear it is just a NOTNEWS issue. It's a minor happening that became a news item. It should be covered by The Daily Show (which it was, for about 8 minutes) and probably by Snopes. But it's a single news event that has no encyclopedic value. tedder (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This article should not be deleted. It relates to a current news story, details may change... this does not mean that nothing should be said until 100% verified facts are available. It is noteworthy to state the apparent facts as they have been reported, as long as the speculative nature of the reporting is made clear in the article. Tedder states that this has happened several times this year, if that claim can be supported by sources then it warrants being added to the article. As Tedder says, this incident has received wide news coverage, which makes it notable. People will search for this incident on Wikipedia in order to find Wikipedians' assessment of the facts. This article is sourced... visitors can have faith that this article constituents the full facts that are available on the incident. Because there are limited facts available, does not mean the article should be deleted... there is value in showing to people that the facts at hand are limited. If this is one of several 'missile launches' then this is a developing story... new facts will come to light and be added to the article in time... or if nothing new transpires it can be made clear to visitors that the reports were entirely speculative and that nothing eventuated from the incident. In short, there is value in leaving this article intact. It is news... a lot of people would consider this as news, as evidenced by its wide coverage in the media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.81.148 (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the above user's only edit. Herr Gruber (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Consider using to mark this. tedder (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. At the moment, just the title of the article is OR: the sources say that something happened, but nobody's sure what it was. Until there's anything concrete about the subject, just noting speculation about a contrail under the title "missile launch" (when it could be any one of a dozen other things) is inherently POV-pushing. You might as well have an article called "2010 bell shaped cloud that is totally a flying saucer because a newspaper said it might be." Herr Gruber (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nomination. Totally speculative and falls under WP:NOTNEWS. I'm not even convinced there was an incident beyond some confused citizens that saw a contrail, which conspiracy theorists picked up and ran as a missile.  bahamut0013  words deeds 15:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Reaffirm: I've looked at the improved and renamed article, and I feel my rationale still stands. Even though it garnered a generous amount of attention, it's still much ado about nothing, and not notable for anything except a brief spurt of media hysteria.  bahamut0013  words deeds 12:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Brief hysteria on a slow, post-election news day. "Somebody filmed a missile contrail, no one knows where it came from" is not really a proper encyclopedic topic, per WP:NOTNEWS. Tarc (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Speculation on the event itself is one thing. The bizarre response from the FAA and the DoD is quite another. The event is notable just for the fact that no one from the plethora of civilian and military sources that should know better can claim responsibility for the "operation", much less agree on what it even is. If the FAA stood up and said "Its a plane guys, relax." the event would still be notable for the fact that several major military organizations apparently didn't know it was a plane when they started making statements relating to a missile launch. I more created the article to start collecting the follow-on responses rather than theorize on the event itself. I've just not had the time to sit down and do more than a slapdash job thus far.130.135.66.4 (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So you believe it's grounds for an article about how it took a government agency a while to do something? Ok, I'll get started on my "late survey form filing incidents of 2003" opus immediately. Here's the rub: post 9/11, if someone says to these agencies that there's been a national security incident, they treat it as such until they can prove otherwise; the spokesman David Lapan actually said that nobody had evaluated the video yet, so it's hardly a surprise that they haven't made any determinations about what made the trail (which should give you some idea of how high this "missile launch" ranks on their list of priorities). There's nothing notable about an event in which they're following procedure and not issuing definite statements until they actually have something definite to state. Herr Gruber (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Marcello Truzzi would support keeping it until at least the facts are known.  Gil Leyvas can still speak to his altitude, coordinates to determine if this was more likley a routine event or an unexplained aberration.  What idiots we would be if we failed to memorialize Reverend Plot's 1673 discovery of a dinosaur bone because someone offered some alternative explanation without scientific observations calculations of height trajectory etc. unsigned edit by 
 * This user has made a total of three edits, at a rate of one per year. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I fail to see how that matters. Just look at the weight of their argument instead. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete the thing that is noteworthy about this event is the journalistic failure. It may belong in another article related to journalistic failure. Jim Bowery (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete largely per Herr Gruber. The article would be more appropriately titled "2010 thing in the sky people saw and wondered about", with contents of "there was a thing on November 9th which some people think may have been a missile but no one really knows because there's no evidence of anything and the news bureaus are mostly saying that because we don't know what it is it must be something." In other words, given current news coverage, there's no there there to hang an article on. Any text calling the thing a missile, unless it's a direct quote from the source (and possibly even then, considering that, as the nominator pointed out, all the "sources" are speculative), amounts to POV pushing, and without the prop of "omg it was a missile," there's nothing to write about yet. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I must say I'm especially impressed with the article saying it happened on November the 9th (title, first para) and also on November the 8th (third para). It's no wonder the military can't get a handle on it, it's clearly being created by a time machine.Herr Gruber (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's due to a lazy merge. tedder (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep (with work and rename). Debunking is just as valuable and encyclopedic as listing pokemon . Andy Dingley (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for now. This is more appropriate for Wikinews for now since, honestly, the title is possible OR and we just don't know what's going on. Kansan (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete It was legitimate to create the article when it looked like the story would continue being controversial, growing and become more noteworthy. But now that it seems obvious it was a contrail, it looks like the story will quickly die and end up a very small blip in this year's news. --Qwerty0 (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure Ok actually I expected the story to fade away but instead the media's coverage of the non-story seems to have become a notable story (like Balloon Boy?). For example, The Rachel Maddow Show, The Daily Show, NPR. --Qwerty0 (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep (with work and rename). Article should be kept and renamed "Apparent contrail of jet mistaken by media as missile launch off Southern California coast 11-8-2010" or something like that. Moe (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - for now. If this turns out to be an optical illusion - delete. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 18:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Why would you delete this article? Re-name it if you wish, but do not delete it. This is relevant. DO NOT DELETE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.0.196 (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Let's face it, people will look here - if this is properly resolved in a few days, it can be be deleted then.188.97.131.207 (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * — 188.97.131.207 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Herr Gruber (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Seeing as how this event is being looked at from many different perspectives and that people will flock to Wikipedia for information, I say a definitive "KEEP" in my books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.101.237.193 (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This isn't even news; this happens all the time. Even the title is nonsense; nobody except a few over-excitable news outlets is calling it a "missile launch". –  iridescent  19:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or at least rename - Heading is WP:OR at the moment and it qualifies under WP:NOT. However, I think if it proves to be as controversial as the Norwegian spiral was it should be recreated with a more appropriate heading. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Its been covered across the country, its still newsworthy, and could be something big depending on what it is. Re-name if you want just keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.200.90 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep I'm hearing a LOT of "rename", but no suggestions. Where are the suggestions? Re-name the article to what??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.0.195 (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * One !vote per person please, if you want to make comments then mark them as Comment rather than Keep/Delete/Merge etc. Fæ (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Contrail. At the moment the topic is notable as a subsection of Contrail. i think it could potentially become notable as an article in its own right because of the panic it created, the conspiracy theory for which mainstream media are especially responsible, and the media's reaction itself. But these aspects would probably have to wait for academic analysis in order to be RS'ed as being notable in a wikipedia sense. See Talk:November 9th, 2010 Southern California Missile Launch for details. i didn't write "merge" here but there might still be a few facts and sources in the present version that could be merged into Contrail. Boud (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC) (strike Boud (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC))
 * Speedy delete A classic example of why Wikipedia is not the news: because instant articles like this may be created before all the facts are in and thus promote misinformation. In this case, someone created an article with a blatantly false title; there is no evidence of any "missile launch". And the longer that title stays here and propagates through the internet, the more people will believe there actually was a missile launch - "after all, Wikipedia said so!" If this thing must stay up for the full 7 days of discussion, at least let's speedy-rename it to something like "November 9, 2010 Southern California contrail controversy". --MelanieN (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep notable incident. Remove from silly "missile" title, of course. TiC (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, clear NOTNEWS issue, POV title, doubtful notability in the future. Hairhorn (talk) 04:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There, I boldly changed the title to November 9th, 2010 Southern California contrail controversy - since everyone here seems to agree the title is unfortunate regardless of where they stand on the keep-vs.-delete discussion. Closing administrator, please note the move. --MelanieN (talk) 04:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But the cited sources say it happened on the 8th. Also, DoD now says it was just a plane contrail, surprising nobody. Case closed, methinks. Herr Gruber (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I added the new information to the article and deleted the confident descriptions of it as a "missile launch". --MelanieN (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's now at November 8th, 2010 Southern California contrail since I couldn't see any sources suggesting the identification was controversial and the date was wrong. Herr Gruber (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The new title, together with the updated information, makes it even clearer what a trivial non-news-story this really was. --MelanieN (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I would oppose a redirect to the Contrail article (even though this incident is covered there) just because this is such an unlikely search term. --MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to 'Launchgate' conspiracy theories—you know they're coming. Failing that, ahem, delete. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:NOTNEWS and is unlikley to be notable in the future (given the now obvious outcome of the investigation). Anotherclown (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Classic WP:NOTNEWS. Sad though a Brand new editor created this in Good Faith; Its unfortunate that his first creation rubs the wrong way of policy. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - News spike "articles are valuable for future historical research" according to the Recentism essay. At the moment the article lacks a long-term perspective, but it's hard to claim that it was just wacky news without potentially major consequences. For more than 24 hours, most of the mainstream media of the world's superpower published media reports which gave the impression that that same superpower, with over 800 military bases around the world, was totally powerless in explaining a missile launch just a few dozen km from one of its major cities. The potential implications could have been a new international war to anyone reading several "independent" mainstream media and assuming that the news was reliable given that it came from several different "reputable" sources. Whether or not the missile meme will survive along with other conspiracy theories remains to be seen, and whether media analysts/academics decide that the media frenzy is important will require some time to see. Boud (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wouldn't this be comparable to the 2009 Norwegian spiral anomaly?--DrWho42 (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. With the difference that (according to the articles), the main reaction by people in Norway was to telephone the Meteorological Office, while the main reaction in the USA was for the media to state that it's a missile unknown to military and aviation authorities. i guess it's a cultural difference. Boud (talk) 10:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - While it was just a contrail, the incredible overreaction of the media is the real story here. Oberono (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a notable event which will be debated for a long time, by people who think it was contrail or some sort of missile. CNN is still talking about it a week later. Today they interviewed a MIT professor who believes it was a missile. --Tocino 00:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (Clarification) The video from CNN appears to be dated 10th November, not today or yesterday. Fæ (talk) 05:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename Having the exact date in the name makes this sound much less important than it really is. I mean, is there one of these every day in California?  I decided to be bold and rename this to "2010 Southern California mystery contrail". Squidfryerchef (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverted. There is no "mystery" anymore as to what it was, and claiming otherwise is POV-pushing. Every credible source agrees it was a head-on aircraft contrail. Herr Gruber (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The contrail sighting is notable because of the mystery of what it was. Multiple reliable sources used the phrase "mystery contrail" to describe this even while describing it as from an aircraft: California's Mystery Contrail Likely an Aircraft, Pentagon Says,  Mystery' contrail seen from space, Experts: Mystery Contrail Was Plane, Not Missile.. Per WP:COMMONNAME, should always use the most common terms for something when titling an article;
 * 2010 Southern California mystery contrail is brief and to the point, while November 8th, 2010 Southern California contrail tends to bury the lead. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Squidfryerchef: If you read the Contrail Science and Bahneman links, you'll find that indeed it seems quite likely that if flight plans remain fixed, then for some span of days around 8 November-ish each year, provided the weather is about the same (temperature, humidity, ...) near Los Angeles, this should occur "every" day. Calculation and observation would be needed to find out how wide the span of valid days is. But i suspect that none of the repeat events would be accepted for individual wikipedia articles. Boud (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What I'm getting at is, it's not every day in California that a contrail generates such a media frenzy. Having the exact date in the title implies that in L.A. they panic over a contrail five or six times a month.  Also, using the exact date causes an additional problem; it was already Nov 9 UTC when the contrail was spotted. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Besides the news coverage, this has instructive value because of what it is; an example of how an aircraft contrail could be mistaken for a missile launch.  This appears to pass the "10-year test" in WP:RECENTISM; I know that if I were studying aviation and something like this had happened 10 years ago, I'd want to read about it.  I understand the reaction that this is just a silly news story, but silly news stories don't get reaction pieces in the New Scientist.  I could live with a merge to contrail, but there is enough coverage of this to merit a separate article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete having a moronic mass media is no reason to have a moronic encyclopedia. -Atmoz (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. At present this fails WP:EVENT by a mile. Enduring coverage? Not yet at any rate. Widespread geographical impact? No. Lasting impact? Doesn't look like it. At best it's worth a mention somewhere else, preferably without a redirect. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2010 (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.