Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Sapsford

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 Redirect to List of wheel-well stowaway flights. There appears to be rough consensus that the event is notable; however, the event is not highly significant (see WP:BIO1E) and the list article already covers the salient details.. Brian Kendig (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Keith Sapsford

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Keith Sapsford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Tragic, but clearly a case of WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - Was only 14 years old and notable for a single event. That event didn't even make that much coverage. The only webpages I could find were forums and images. Koridas 📣 16:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Prodded improperly without a valid rationale. WP:BIO1E does not say to delete anything – its point is whether to focus on the incident or the individual. This incident is certainly notable because there has been continuing coverage over 50 years. It happened in 1970 and so there was naturally detailed coverage at the time. A decade later, it is detailed in Photojournalism: The Professionals' Approach. Another decade later and it is detailed in Picture Editing & Layout: A Guide to Better Visual Communication. Another decade later, it's in Trapped. And then 50 years later, it's in the press such as the NZ Herald. Someone creates an article and it is prodded for "uncontroversial deletion" with a nonsensical rationale. Our actual applicable policies include WP:ATD, WP:BITE, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• I was just browsing today's Guardian and found that there was a long read article about such stowaways which included details of this case. So, yet again, we see continuing coverage which demonstrates notability. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of wheel-well stowaway flights. Our actual policies like Notpaper also say "Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion". Our actual policies like ATD say "keep" is not the only ATD. The photograph is implied above to be more notable than the individual, but both are and can be covered in the main list. Reywas92^Talk 18:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• This topic does not require a free pass because the extensive and repeated coverage makes it easily pass WP:GNG. The special feature of this case is that the fall was captured in a photograph and this makes it especially unusual and notable. The list does not contain the photograph, details of the photographer and how it came to be captured. These details are best covered in the page which we already have for the purpose. Merger would be additional work for no added-value. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The list does not contain the photograph" Damn, too bad we're not allowed to merge photos into other pages... Reywas92^Talk 17:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, easily meets WP:GNG. The coverage of the incident in 1970 was picked up by the Associated Press, and the short article and accompanying picture were redistributed worldwide, mostly on page 1, from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin (23 Feb 1970, page 1), to the Ottawa Journal (23 Feb 1970, page 1), to the San Francisco Examiner (23 Feb 1970, page 1). Then many newspapers had end-of-year "best photo of the year" sections, re-covering the event, like The Cincinnati Enquirer (3 Jan 1971, page 4-J), Fort-Meyers News-Press (12 Jan 1971, Page 6), and so on. More coverage appeared later, including The Age (Melbourne, Australia, 10 Jul 1973, page 5). Then in 1975, the AP ran with another piece on the incident that was also republished throughout the world over the coming months, like the Detroit Free Press (2 Mar 1975, page 15), Boston Globe (10 Nov 1975, page 2), The Cincinnati Enquirer (21 Dec 1975, page G-3), and so on, and I'm just randomly picking from a few of the many, many global newspapers that picked up this story throughout the years, and I only searched newspapers. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• And, like Andrew, I also read The Guardian article this morning and saw details of Keith's incident mentioned in the article, came here to mention it and saw that it already had been mentioned. Article link: [1], (same article but different link than what Andrew posted).RecycledPixels (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Move to Death of Keith Sapsford and rewrite it without the plagiarism. He isn't notable, but his death was - there are still articles being written about it years later. Incidentally I have nominated the image for deletion - it was being hosted on Commons where it pretty obviously shouldn't be as it's non-free. Black Kite (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I still do not think the coverage we have rises above the level of news cycle coverage. We are not a newspaper. That applies as much to 50+ year old information as current.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• The incident was mentioned in a Guardian article only yesterday [2] and in far more detail in the Herald only a couple of years ago [3]. There is continuing coverage here, though our article is predictably awful. Black Kite (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Recreate at Death of Keith Sapsford once the copyright problem has been dealt with, as per User:Black Kite. There is clearly continuing press coverage, enough to meet notability requirements.Ingratis (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:TNT. If there is an issue with copyright, it almost always involves poor editing, or cut and paste. Bearian (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2021 (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.