Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knitting on airplanes

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 merge to Airline security. Black Kite 22:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knitting on airplanes[edit]

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

After cracking up over this for about 10 minutes, I'd like to get some opinions: Is this notable??? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is definitely notable. It has many sources about it throughout the 2000s especially. It has come into the news a lot all over the world as a security issue. The reason given for deletion is that is sounds "weird" to the proposer. But it doesn't sound weird to me, the creator. Dew Kane (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I must admit it sounds "weird," but that was not the point here. Notability is the question as to whether or no it warrants a separate article. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to knitting. Worth mentioning but I don't think it deserves its own article. JIP | Talk 08:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly merge. The page's sources link to routine after-9/11 news reporting (WP:NOTNEWS) and trivial lists of permitted and non-permitted items (WP:NOTGUIDE). At best, the temporary restrictions can be mentioned on Airport security repercussions due to the September 11 attacks#Restricted items, but I really don't think that the subject is notable in its own right. — Rankiri (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while this is properly sourced, Rankiri has a good point about this being more of a news item. This isn't much more than a now-deleted article (can't remember the exact title) that was basically "List of fruits that cannot legally be carried on subways in Southeast Asia" and consisted of nothing more than the durian. Nyttend (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~^{(duplicate recommendation)} While news items are used as the source, this is not a routine news item. See WP:EVENT for more details. Dew Kane (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1.) This is about an issue that has been dealt with in the law, and is therefore ongoing. WP:PERSISTENCE describes this. 2.) This is an international issue. WP:GEOSCOPE goes into this. 3.) Has received coverage in a diverity of sources (WP:DIVERSE).

Merge a trimmed version to knitting. I think this is one of those cases where the subject might well be technically notable by virtue of coverage in reliable sources, but, there's simply not enough actual content to justify a separate article. In other words, our coverage of knitting is best served by a smaller number of longer articles that have been worked on by many different people, than by a larger, more fragmented body of small articles, each watched by a separate editor.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long enough article already that it should be separate from knitting, a very long article. I am still trying to find out the laws in other countries, which will make it grow even longer. Dew Kane (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or possibly merge per Rankiri above. A classic case of the folly that just because sources can be found that talk about something, it requires a separate article. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms. There is absolutely no reason for a standalone article on this topic, any more so than there would be for Cigarette lighters on airplanes, Matches on airplanes, Pressurized aerosols on airplanes, not to mention Sleeping on airplanes, Reading on airplanes, and Talking to airplane seatmates. Why on earth people think it's better to have a dozen short articles about closely related topics than one decent-length article that presents similar material together for the reader's convenience, is beyond me. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been articles just about knitting on airplanes, especially after 9/11, when the Wall Street Journal covered it. It meets WP:PERSISTENCE because it has been covered at least from 2001 to 2009. It meets WP:GEOSCOPE because it has been covered in almost every continent. It meets WP:DIVERSE because it has been covered in many separate, independent papers. Dew Kane (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And there have been articles about Michelle Obama's arms. And about George Washington's teeth, and the Ford Taurus Ghia, and Saint Protasius. Sometimes a topic just doesn't need a separate article. This is one of those times. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CB-merge to Knitting. Got a good laugh from it. But it's too much of a specialization for its own article. Ikluft (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere. Is there an air security restrictions article? If not, then to Airline security. (Hmm... so nailclippers are more dangerous than knitting needles??!!!?) 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the article title and the lead sentence, one would expect that there has been significant coverage in secondary sources about the subject of knitting on airplanes. Since my grandmother liked to knit, I looked forward to learning about this. How many people knit on airplane? How many stitches are dropped because of air turbulence. Sorry, I digress.
I reviewed the sources given and found that three of the seven different sources given are primary (government sites saying what you can and can't bring). Three are mainly about all of the various object that are or aren't allowed on an airplane (and have an incidental mention of knitting needles). The final reference is about teacher's being banned from knitting in a classroom (and has an incidental reference to the ban of knitting needles on airplanes).
THERE is NOT one article from a secondary source which is primarily about either the subject of knitting on airplanes or the subject of allowing knitting needles on airplanes (such as weighing the pros and cons or lobbying efforts to have the ban lifted). So I must say delete. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did read that there was an article in the Wall Street Journal specifically about knitting on airplanes. I am still trying to find the direct link to it, though direct links are not required for the sources to be used. The article, as far as I know, came out after 9/11, and states how knitters suddenly became outlaws because of the ban. Dew Kane (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to not the article itself, but something that shows the date and title [1] Dew Kane (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Airline security. This is not about knitting per say but this is just one of many objects subject to restrictions on airlines. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Individual laws are generally considered notable, surely this listing of laws. --Pink Bull 00:27, 22 March 2010 (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.