Deletion of Air Canada Flight 018 Stowaway incident

Comment: This isn't a run-of-the-mill minor incident, and, as Tautomers mentioned, it has significance, passes  and . It thus warrants a stand-alone article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:EVENTCRIT)

Comment: per the citations provided in Levivich's weak keep in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Canada Flight 018 Stowaway Incident|the first AfD.  This establishes all five major elements of .   I'm not really sure why people are citing  as a reason for deletion; the article is clearly '''not''' 1. original reporting, 2. written in an unencyclopedic tone, 3. overly emphasizing any of the individual personalities involved in the incident, or 4. celebrity gossip or a diary, which are the four elements listed under NOTNEWS.   is not a valid reason to delete because of the four elements of that policy that could apply here are #2, and the enduring notability of the incident are demonstrated by the repeated, long-term reporting in cited by Levivich in multiple reliable sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per  and the .  explicitly encourages articles as Air Canada Flight 018 Stowaway incident. Hence strange that some use it against the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: The nominator's claim that "the only thing unusual about the story was that he wore a silicon mask" seems to indicate that they have no understanding of what notability means on Wikipedia.  I also don't understand how this article fails ; it's not original reporting (there is significant coverage of the event from many reliable sources), it's not a news report (the incident happened over a decade ago), and it's obviously not a who's who or a celebrity gossip or diary
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: This AfD is an obvious misapplication of  that was litigated previously per RecycledPixels above. The argument that because this is one of a large N that makes it less notable is fallacious. A larger population means more, not less, notable examples would be expected. For example, a larger country should have more notable people. The fact that we don't know who the man is because of privacy concerns is irrelevant too. And the argument that this case is "only" unusual because of the mask contradicts the argument that this is . In fact, because the mask use was so unique, it caused CBSA to issue an internal alert that was leaked to CNN, so this became an international story. We have in-depth follow-up coverage in multiple reliable sources on both the initial investigation, the asylum hearings in Canada, and the arrest, trial, and conviction of ground personnel in Hong Kong. I have added several more of these refs to the article. So this AfD should be closed because the discussion above is now moot
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:RUNOFTHEMILL)

Comment: per , fails . Is there any sign of enduring coverage either? lassic case of PAPER. Trivial incident, no lasting effects. The news media covered it for its novelty, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.Seems like a trivial newspaper story that is not worthy of a stand alone article in an encyclopedia. Minor NEWS event without lasting coverage or significance
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWSPAPER)

Comment: per nom. A clear-cut case of , with no sign of lasting coverage or impact other than on the protagonists
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

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