Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yemenia Flight 448


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yemenia Flight 448

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable hijack. Plane didn't leave the ground. Hijacker stopped easily. The flight had notable passengers on board, which BTW the unreferenced article, but I think this is not noteworthy for an article WP:NOTNEWS —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs) 23:32, 2 May 2011


 * Comment - The US Ambassador is not notable? See paywalled news article. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 03:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, according to the FAA's Criminal Acts Against Civil Aviation, 2001, p. 28, the US ambassador to Yemen, the Yemeni ambassador to the US, and the US Deputy Chief of Mission to Yemen were all aboard. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 05:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How could a plane that was hijacked while in the air "didn't leave the ground"? --Oakshade (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Further comment - according to the Aviation Safety Network entry, the plane was actually hijacked in midair about 15 minutes into the flight. Unless this is another separate incident, on another Yemenia Flight 448 (which I seriously doubt), the Yemenia 448 page itself is wrong. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 05:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC) the nominator's rationale is wrong. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 05:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "the nominator's rationale is wrong" - except for the unreferenced part, which has yet to be addressed in the article itself. - BilCat (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it has. Nominator claims plane never left the ground and the hijacker was "stopped easily." The article claims that the plane was in the air when the hijacking occurred, and that the flight crew managed to subdue the hijacker. The article's only wrong on the number of injuries. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 17:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the article does not have sources.- BilCat (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Now it does. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 18:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good. - BilCat (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not so good. WP:AIRCRASH lists three criteria for whether an incident should have an article. They are-

Yemenia Flight 448 doesn't fit any of the three. That the plane had noteworthy passengers on board(BTW I found an article that said General Tommy Franks was on board.)) isn't grounds for an article.- William 19:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, not a policy. Also, you'll need to consider that the criteria is a bit different for hijackings, which do not always end in loss of aircraft or blood shed, but are notable otherwise. For whatever reason, the essay hasn't been updated to cover the notability of hijackings, but that's probably because it'll end up falling under the scope of WP:CRIME or WP:N/CA or WP:EVENT... or something. I'm not entirely sure. If we follow the standards set by WP:AIRCRASH, then pretty much every non-fatal hijacking incident that did not involve a hull loss or cause a change to security procedure would be up for deletion, which is plainly wrong. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 23:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, can you post the source that mentioned General Franks either on my talk page so I can incorporate it into the article, or do so yourself? Thanks. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 23:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete for now As written, the article has no sources, and asserts no real claims of notability. Mukkakukaku has shown that there are sources and claims of lasting notability, but we won't know if these will be able to meet the AIRCRASH, GNG, and EVENT guidelines until they are actually added into the article - adding them to the AFD page doesn't countIf these issues are properlay addressed in the article, I'll review my stand at that time. - BilCat (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 *  Merge and redirect to Yemenia article. The hijacking is verified by ASN, but not the claims made in the article. Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Switching to Keep following improvements to the article via references which show that there were changes as a result of the incident. Mjroots (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Looks like this could be sourced into a full fleshed out article. Found 29 news articles:, this one is particularly good for details: , additional 16 news articles here: . Denaar (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Plenty of news coverage doesn't make the incident noteworthy. Take for instance WP:Articles_for_deletion/Air_France_Flight_7 where planes collided on the ground at JFK. On the other hand, a crash like Viasa Flight 742 where it is hard info about is noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia article. It was the worst aviation accident in history at the time and had a very large amount of on the ground casualties.- William 13:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed WP:Event and WP:NOTNEWS and still feel this is a keep. It meets the general notability guideline and has significant, in depth coverage, not routine reports. It was reported Internationally so it has a wide geographical scope.  It sparked a review of safety procedures for US Ambassadors . It's been analyzed in a pre-9/11 context .Denaar (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - agreeing with Denaar. The result of WP:Articles_for_deletion/Air_France_Flight_7 shouldnt be taken as a guideline or consensus for other Afds.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as a sourced, competently written and notable-enough article per Denaar's reasoning. --Lockley (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This debate comes up again whenever we have a notable political event that happens on an airplane. Although I agree with WP:AIRCRASH as an essay, I don't think the criteria in it should be applied to this type of article. The event is notable for its political aspects, not anything aviation related. The guideline that should be used is WP:EVENT.--Banana (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep agree that WP:EVENT is more applicable (as well as being more authoritative). Wickedjacob (talk) 15:31, 9 May 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.