Deletion of Colorado balloon incident

Comment: per |Wikipedia not showcasing news events. This was a complete waste of time on a slow news day
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: It's an interesting news story, but that's as far as it goes.  otability#Notability_is_not_temporary|Notability is not temporary, and this simply isn't a topic that can reasonably sustain a whole article long-term.  As  says, "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per . This incident, while popular amongst the media, is not significant whatsoever
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: we're |not a news organisation. &ndash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: since there are so many strong keeps for some reason) - Child supposedly disappears in balloon yet is found in attic? So he didn't even disappear? . Please tell me the United States has more to offer than this... if we're going to have this kind of feel-good story, I preferred the adventures of http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0915/clyde.html Clyde and have been waiting patiently for an attempted article but suspect his location in the southern hemisphere will not help his cause... and Muffy the Melbourne mongrel... nine years is a long time... I'm sure this kind of story has appeared in the international news... the point being that not every news story could in theory be seen as worthy of an article no matter where in the world it happens and where it spreads to but that on Wikipedia there is the odd phenomenon where American news stories take on an apparent importance not seen elsewhere. But back to balloons,  and  refer to stubs, are not policy and I cannot see what potential there is for development here. One argument for keep says Wikipedia has an article about a girl who fell down a well and nothing else? There are also a serious amount of arguments which contradict . Examples: "additional background will be available in the next few days", "it's likely to be notable enough to be worthy of a page in Wikipedia" and "It might also be cited in psychology textbooks". Where is the evidence for such claims? And please remember that if the boy has been found alive and his family are alive that they are all living persons and that the boy is known for this one minor event
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:POTENTIAL||WP:CHANCE||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: WP:NTEMP + . Obvious one off event. There is no reason to suggest anyone will still be interested in it after a few months
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: I don't want to repeat arguments here but, this is pure |news, not encyclopedic, recentism, etc etc. In a year will people be googling to look for this incident? No
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: WP:NOTNEWS until or unless it has a future societal meaning. As-is it's just a sectioned news article that walks through the event. Just because something gets mass media coverage doesn't give it an automatic ticket to an entry as many people here seem to think it does. How about an entry for the child that got run over by a train? That even had video with it! No. WP isn't a dumping ground of stories of strange things that happen to children. This is why the news story is archived. That's where people are free to read about it later. Only the greater social angle of it snowballing suits the definition of the "impact" of this that it needs be worth keeping, and that's being reeeeeeeeealy generous under  since this whole matter will never be spoken again by next week. If it's to be kept, it needs to focus on the global hype over such a seemingly minor news event
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:ONEDAY)

Comment: Two and a half days later, it's still the number one topic on Google News.  If that isn't notability (in the regular, non-Wikipedia, sense), I don't know what is.  If this turns out to be an ephemeral event that no one remembers in a few months' time, it can be revisited then, but per  we should not jump the gun
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: no indications of any notability, this is just a stupid hoax and a concern for the child protection agency. As said before, #News|Wikipedia is not news and this is an encyclopedia, not the place to promote some ridiculous publicity stunt
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: I reckon that the momentary publicity is one thing, the general notability is another. , {{User:Emír Balduin Hallef Omar Ali al-Adid bin Abú Sharee al-Kerak/sig
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: See also rticles for deletion/Heene ballon incident|rticles for deletion/Heene ballon (sic) incident
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A)

Comment: Wiki'''pedia''', not Wiki'''#NEWS|news'''. Fluffy story on a slow news day. Will be forgotten about in a week. In short, exactly what NOT#NEWS is written to prevent
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per  and . Wordsmith, Alansohn, and further up Xenon and Candlewicke make some useful observations, and I agree with the proposal by the nominator. We should not cover every hoax, local story or media beat-up as a topic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: As per : "News coverage can be useful ''source material'' for encyclopedic topics, but ''not all events'' warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." (Italics added for emphasis
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per #NEWS
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Per  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: because adding "Strong" does not carry any extra weight...). So a kid unties his dad's fancy balloon, watches it float away, then runs and hides. What's so important about that? It's no different than, say, a kid driving himself to school. Life goes on, kids will be kids, the world is still turning, and this will be forgotten in three days. (Unless, of course, someone from a media outlet tries to write an article about this AfD. We know how that goes.) The only reason the article is here is because of the inordinate (and frankly, disgusting) amount of cable news coverage devoted to what amounts to a wild goose chase. I think if the outcome was worse (i.e. search and rescue mission), as CNN, Fox Noise, MSNBC and even Sky News had pretty much assumed it would be, this would be a very different discussion. But it didn't turn out that way, and  and  apply here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: This is the clearest example I've seen for a long time of why we need . We do not cover every single incident for which there is a burst of news stories. This is a late silly season story that nobody will remember next week, let alone next year. A boy not being carried away by a balloon is not an unusual incident worthy of an encyclopedia article. The "keep" arguments basically amount to "I saw a news report about it on telly, it must be notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Being in the |NEWS is not a reason to keep, but obviously it is not a reason to delete this either. This incident is sufficiently unusual/silly/whatever to be arguably notable (and this is also why it has significant news coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Classic case of . BLP disaster waiting to happen
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Clearly this article is about |one event and Wikipedia is |not a news website
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: well documented, verifiable event with ample reliable sources.  Most of the comments requesting deletion are focused on #News which is more of a guideline, not a strict policy.  I think there's a lot of indication that is simply not *just* news, and on balance, this is a good article that ought to be the example for others
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: at this point.  What everybody else said.  No, we're not a news site.  Yes, this is |notable under the circumstances
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: blatant case of  and . We shouldn't have an article on every brief story that occupies the news cycle for a few hours, especially when they involve non-notable people, and especially when there essentially ''is'' no story
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per nom and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: this it not a notable event at all. It was the "news of the day" and completely fails ,  (which does apply as the incident is about living people not phantoms), and OT#NEWS. It is neither significant, relevant, nor even unusual. This is not WikiNews, MSNBC, etc etc etc...this is Wikipedia, and having an article on this flash in the pan story of the day that will be forgotten by Monday is ridiculous
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BLP1E||WP:NOT)

Comment: I saw this, and read random posts, and some of us seem to have confused  with 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:ANEVENTISCOVEREDINTHENEWSTHEREFOREITCANNOTBEINCLUDEDINWIKIPEDIASOWEMUSTDELETEIMMEDIATLYDESPITETHEFACTTHATTHISWASCOVEREDBY)

Comment: Per Delta1989, Alison and others. We may find ourselves discussing this again in the following 6 months, but for now, let's  and . And I appreciated a lot the comment above about WP covering as an encyclopedia real-time events -good point to consider in cases like this
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state (WP:POTENTIAL||WP:CHANCE)

Comment: per  and . "Kid hid in attic while a balloon flew away
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:109PAPERS)

Comment: as #NEWS. Seriously, this is just a bright flash in the pan
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Per  and the essay Wikipedia:News articles. Wikinews is the proper venue for a water-cooler news item of no significance like this. If the "Boy Who Was Not Really In The Little Balloon, But Hiding in the Attic 'For The Show'" turns out to be as notable as Wrong Way Corrigan who flew "accidentally" from New York to Ireland in 1938 and told authorities he had intended to fly to California, then an article can be created detailing the made-for-TV movies, books, new laws, or societal effects  beyond being literally an "OOH SHINY!!! distractor or stunt which captivated CNN for 2 hours when they could have been discussing war, politics, the economy, or swine flu
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)