Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Air New Zealand Boeing 747 hijack

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete - covered at Air_New_Zealand. JohnCD (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Air New Zealand Boeing 747 hijack


Draft with no references about a seemingly non-existent event which continues to be submitted at AfC.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * DELETE unfortunately it's not a hoax, but I still state delete since the IPs submitting it for review without addressing the concerns raised by the different reviewers, causing wasted time and effort. As my searches have brought up very little on this event (Partially because it's pre Internet age) it's not likely to be notable enough for its own article and should be left as an entry at Air_New_Zealand. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is also a much better version at Draft:Air New Zealand Flight 24 but still suffering from several of the same issues. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect both to Air_New_Zealand (or delete with reference to Air_New_Zealand, effectively the same thing), with advice to expand the existing coverage, noting an option to spin out an article, and option that should be proposed at Talk:Air New Zealand, not in DraftSpace. Article spinouts in draftspace appear to be a bad idea.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question - Can you redirect drafts? Or should we simply create redirects and delete the drafts?  Onel 5969  TT me 00:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirects are cheap and versatile. Every draft moved to mainspace leaves a redirect behind.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirects out of mainspace are the not-allowed WP:CNRs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete in preference to redirect. The subject is already covered adequately in the Air NZ article (indeed the other draft is little more than a copy-and-paste from there anyway). A redirect is partly to allow alternative search terms to point to an article, and who is going to Google "Draft Air New Zealand"? YSSYguy (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete – As I mentioned at Draft:Air New Zealand Flight 24, the incident itself is likely non-notable. I'd be okay with the redirect, but I don't see how useful that would be. Mz7 (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The redirect very effectively tells the author, should they return, where to go. So does reference to the article in a deletion log.
 * There is some possibility of merging material, just because the incident is not notable doesn't mean the content can't be merged. It is not definitely not notable.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Draft has less detail than the proposed redirect target, so there's nothing to merge. There is no objection to someone with more competence having another crack at it if they can rustle up more sources to demonstrate notability (someone - probably the same person - has already tried another version at Draft:Air New Zealand Flight 24 after the submission of this Draft was declined, albeit without actually addressing the core issues and raising the extra problem that it is a copy-and-paste job with a bit of irrelevant padding bolted around it). Both drafts are in my opinion basically sandbox/test edits in the wrong place. YSSYguy (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2016 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.