Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines flight 1740

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 of the nomination was delete. Mackensen (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this for PROD a few weeks ago, but the notice was removed, and per the agreement on the talk page, I agreed to not nominate it for AfD until the preliminary NTSB report was released. That has now happened, but the report, in the words of one of the article's defenders, "not very interesting". Basically, this is a non-event. Aircraft have minor technical failings leading to emergency landings all the time. No-one was injured or killed in this accident, and it does not look like much is going to come of this. I am not convinced this is notable enough; this year alone, there have been 748 aviation incidents that the NTSB has reported on (did a search on their website). Unless you are proposing articles for them all, we need to be selective about which ones we keep, and, in my opinion, this is not one of them. Batmanand | Talk 10:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep For at least a little while because it is similar to JetBlue Airways Flight 292. Thank you batmanand to invite me to this discussion. Jam01 00:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete good work on the nom. This isn't a notable event, as "airplane in minor prang" isn't sufficiently notable. At most, this sounds like part of a statistic for minor airplane incidents. MLA 10:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also WP is not a newspaper. Tychocat 11:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 12:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I am the quoted "defender of the article". I'd like to thank Batmanand for holding off on bringing this to AfD until the NTSB preliminary report is out. However, I'd like to clarify that my remarks about "not very interesting" was in regards to the NTSB report specifically, not the entire event. It is still just a preliminary report. I find the event to be interesting, well documented, and notable. I don't claim it is a hugely important event, but I do think it is notable enough to be included here. This incident is very similar to JetBlue Airways Flight 292 which did survive AfD. I don't suggest that we should have an article on every incident that generates an NTSB report - some of those reports are even less serious than an emergency landing - such as someone getting injured in the air because they tripped going to the bathroom. However, emergency landings of commercial airliners are not common, and when they generate coverage in the reputable media, as this one has, then they are legitimate topics for articles. Johntex\^talk 13:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The JetBlue 292 article only survived AfD because it was nominated the day after the incident and a whole crowd of people failed to grasp that it would be forgotten within months. As it indeed was. Nine-odd months down the line, I am not so sure it would survive a second AfD now that people have had a better chance to put the event into perspective. — Haeleth Talk 15:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The event was worthy enough to make national news and it's not a common occurrence, so I say keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goatwarrior (talk • contribs)

Note that this is the user's sixth registered contribution. Batmanand | Talk 13:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Recentism. If this had happened thirty years ago no one would have made an article about it today. BoojiBoy 13:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BoojiBoy. If someone still remembers this incident in a year and adds this again I may reconsider. Travelbird 14:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a WP:NN aircraft incident DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 14:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BoojiBoy. Possibly transwiki to WikiNews if contributors agree to dual-license edits on the article under the Creative Commons license used on wikinews. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 14:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unlikely to be significant. Can always be recreated if it turns out to be more than a footnote to a footnote in aviation history. — Haeleth Talk 15:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Redirect to American Airlines --Macarion 17:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BoojiBoy. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 19:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - to somewhere in the American Airlines page. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 19:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking at other articles in Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners in the United States, it seems like the other noteworthy articles in that category either involved fatalities or extensive injuries, or at least substantial news coverage. Also, the other accidents and incidents in that category usually have some lessons learned and implications for future safety improvements. I don't think those criteria are true for this article (unless the final NTSB investigation shows that there's an issue with airworthiness or maintenance), so in that case, I'd recommend a delete. Not strongly, though. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 19:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not of encyclopaedic level of significance. Stephen B Streater 21:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a Reuters archive. Unimportant incident. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge. Think hard, where could this be merged to? That is, what is the underlying topic/meaning/facts? If we're only talking about the event, then it's worthless. (And thanks for the mention above of Wikipedia:Recentism) Shenme 04:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. There are some instances where a non-fatal aviation incident is notable. A few weeks ago I wrote G-TIGK North Sea ditching because it was featured in an episode of Air Crash Investigation, and the investigation had ramifications for the design ofhelipcopter blades. Some other non-fatal incidents such as Hapag-Lloyd Flight 3378, Air Transat Flight 236 and British Airways Flight 5390 had a sufficiently dramatic series of events (fuel exhaustion and the captain being sucked out of the window and surviving) that they are definite encyclopedic topics. In this case we have a nose gear failure and collapse on the runway, but an ultimately successful emergency landing. To me, the incident looks like a thing which will be fairly quickly forgotten. The NTSB makes it report, and takes such incidents very seriously as it should do. However, I fear articles on such minor incidents without any ramifications beyond the incident itself, are likely to clog up the aviation incidents category. If the report produced some findings which for instance led to the grounding of all MD-80 planes for fix-ups of the landing gear, I would reconsider. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn incident. --WinHunter ^(talk) 11:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a list of everything that made the nightly news. -- GWO
• Keep - like the JetBlue incident. We have a Category:Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners in the United States if we are going to exclude incidents and merely tally bodycounts, let's revise the category and delete all the "incidents" like JetBlue. Carlossuarez46 19:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to nominate the JetBlue article if this AfD ends in a delete. Batmanand | Talk 18:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: 150 dead. Stephen B Streater 06:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 9 July 2006 Irkutsk S7 Airlines crash
• Delete There's nothing particularly special about this incident. Kudos to the nominator and keep voters above who were so civil and reasonable prior to the AfD.--Chaser T 06:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not appear to have been notable beyond the participants. Eluchil404 02:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is not the policy of Wikipedia to delete articles due to non-notability (go check for yourself) and therefore the nom itself is bunk. To delete this article per nom, first change WP policy. Since past attempts to change that policy failed, consider that also the consensus of the WP community. Deleting this would be sneaking around policy at best or violating it at worst. --Ephilei 21:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Then we can delete it because wikipedia is not news reports. That's policy.--Chaser T 22:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is certainly not a news report. It cites multiple reports, including a government report on the incident. Johntex\^talk 11:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a news report of no "historical significance" (quoting the above policy) that links to a government report that is "not very interesting" (quoting yourself). It belongs at wikinews. In any case, I mostly responded b/c of Ephilei's comment above, which annoyingly suggested we were evading policy, while "there is no official policy on notability" (quoting WP:N). Things get deleted as non-notable all the time, even when there's not a clearly applicable consensual guideline, which there is obviously not for airplane crashes.--Chaser T 12:11, 11 July 2006 (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.