Deletion of November 9th, 2010 Southern California Missile Launch

Comment: Heading is  at the moment and it qualifies under #NEWS. However, I think if it proves to be as controversial as the Norwegian spiral was it should be recreated with a more appropriate heading
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NOT)

Comment: Besides the news coverage, this has instructive value because of what it is; an example of how an aircraft contrail could be mistaken for a missile launch.  This appears to pass the "10-year test" in ; I know that if I were studying aviation and something like this had happened 10 years ago, I'd want to read about it.  I understand the reaction that this is just a silly news story, but silly news stories don't get reaction pieces in the New Scientist.  I could live with a merge to contrail, but there is enough coverage of this to merit a separate article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: Brief hysteria on a slow, post-election news day.  "Somebody filmed a missile contrail, no one knows where it came from" is not really a proper encyclopedic topic, per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Wikipedia:RECENTISM#News_spikes|News spike "articles are valuable for future historical research" according to the Recentism essay. At the moment the article lacks a long-term perspective, but it's hard to claim that it was just wacky news without potentially major consequences. For more than 24 hours, most of the mainstream media of the world's superpower published media reports which gave the impression that that same superpower, with over 800 military bases around the world, was totally powerless in explaining a missile launch just a few dozen km from one of its major cities. The potential implications could have been a new international war to anyone reading several "independent" mainstream media and assuming that the news was |reliable given that it came from several different "reputable" sources. Whether or not the missile meme will survive along with other conspiracy theories remains to be seen, and whether media analysts/academics decide that the media frenzy is important will require some time to see
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: There, I |boldly changed the title to November 9th, 2010 Southern California contrail controversy - since everyone here seems to agree the title is unfortunate regardless of where they stand on the keep-vs.-delete discussion. Closing administrator, please note the move
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:BOLD)

Comment: Classic . Sad though a Brand new editor created this in Good Faith; Its unfortunate that his first creation rubs the wrong way of policy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: At present this fails  by a mile. Enduring coverage? Not yet at any rate. Widespread geographical impact? No. Lasting impact? Doesn't look like it. At best it's worth a mention somewhere else, preferably without a redirect
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)