Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seaboard World Airlines Flight 253A

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. Consensus among participants of sufficient reliable sourcing to satisfy the GNG. Goldsztajn (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seaboard World Airlines Flight 253A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, a plane landing after being intercepted isn't notable. a random marker (talk to me here) 18:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Aviation, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think we've got this major issue with plane crash articles at AfD being sent on grounds that specific instances "aren't notable" without actually looking at the sourcing. This article has been around for almost 20 years, which isn't a reason for keeping, but the reason it has been around this long is that it clearly has major lasting coverage and has mentions in books written years later. SportingFlyer T·C 00:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I’m not seeing any evidence of there being significant and in-depth continued coverage from reliable secondary sources. A search only turns up contemporary sources, Wikipedia mirror sites or self-published sources. The books in question aren’t from subject matter experts and are self published so they simply don’t count towards notability. Passing mentions also don’t count towards notability. There are many articles that have been around here for years to decades that also don’t pass the bar of notability, and this is one of them. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Japan, and United States of America. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: I don't have the subject-matter expertise to know the long-term significance within aviation, but it seems unlikely that an event that was above the fold front page news nationwide (example) wouldn't pass GNG. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's as much a cold war event as it is an aviation event. Coverage is clearly lasting just from the sources available in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 03:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have reapplied {{subst:afd2}}, as portions of the code went missing. No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG, major international incident at the time and a precurser to later shootdowns in the same area. Mztourist (talk) 07:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This clearly is a notable flight. Aneirinn (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of SIGCOV in reliable sources from the time of the event, including the New York Times and Time Magazine, with additional reporting in later years (like here). Bad nomination as well, simply stating "this isn't notable" doesn't exactly make for a compelling argument for deletion. nf utvol (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – This source found by User:Nfutvol provides significant and in-depth coverage of the event. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : Notable Cold War incident, well-documented, meets WP:GNG. The plane was intercepted by Soviet jets and forced to land, which got a lot of attention at the time. There’s solid coverage in reliable sources like the New York Times and Time Magazine. NXcrypto Message 03:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article has significant coverage. Not only given sources but also on google search wecan find pleny of coverage in independent sources. Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep per above comments / reasons. ( WP:SNOW) Lolzer3k 14:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.