Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Berlin Flight 2450

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 delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Berlin Flight 2450

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

A non-notable incident in which an airliner that had a rejected take-off and then overran the runway in snow, no injuries only minor airframe damage. Fails to meet

WP:AIRCRASH guideline and article had been prodded (and supported) for same reason MilborneOne (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Strong delete - No deaths, no injuries.

talk) 11:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - Per nominator. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I suggest we keep it for a bit longer until the investigation is complete due to one reason. That reason is that there have been 3 incidents; all of which were runway overruns and involved the

Boeing 737-800 aircraft, there may be a connection, there may not. That's why I suggest we keep it until further information is released. Zaps93 (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - fails notability guidelines. If it turns out to be part of a connected trend then this should be mentioned in the aircraft type article as it still wouldn't justify a series of separate articles on each one. - Ahunt (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Someday, I hope that there is an article devoted to runway overruns, where all such incidents can be mentioned by persons who see some sort of historical value in them. I'm glad that nobody was hurt. As with any incident, there will be an investigation, but there's nothing here that can't be mentioned (with a link for the benefit of persons who find this interesting and want to know more) in the article about Air Berlin or about the Boeing 737-800. Mandsford (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete w/
WP:SNOW per reasoning above. Article on overruns and/or a boeing-specific fault might be interesting, but this is not. -- samj _in ^out 15:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. There certainly seems to be some kind of security flaw with these planes and I sincerely hope there won't be any fatal incidents in 2010. However, there is a trend, there was plenty of press coverage [1] (even if only mostly here in Germany), and it did cause Dortmund Airport to be closed all day. Jared Preston (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I said above only three days ago... There seems to be a trend! Yet another B737-800 falling off the runway. Jared Preston (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Probably more to do with the bad snow and ice in Europe at the moment perhaps they should be mentioned in

European winter storms of 2009–2010, still doesnt make this one event notable. MilborneOne (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Although bad weather was a factor in Kingston, snow certainly wasn't! :) But seriously, how common are runway over-runs in Europe during winter for airliners? I honestly don't know. - BilCat (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. The article can be recreated in the information changes in the future. - BilCat (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it doesn't meet
WP:AIRCRASH then get rid of it. JBsupreme (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Luckily,

WP:AIRCRASH now provides alternatives for writing a separate article every time something out of the ordinary happens on an airplane. Last year at this time [2], WP:AIRCRASH was kind of an inclusionist's wish list that excluded nothing. Some common sense reforms were made in September, and most such incidents can be mentioned in the article about the airline, the airplane or the type of accident. Mandsford (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Definitely fails
WP:EVENT. Fences&Windows 01:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, possibly worth a mention under the airline and airport articles. The aircraft was undamaged and returned to service. Mjroots (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Fails to meet
WP:AIRCRASH. However, an overshoot w/o any damage to the plane or any injuries in turn would probably be notable. Blodance (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The notion of a design flaw appears itself to be flawed. An aborted takeoff, an overrun on landing and one plane that slipped on ice long after it landed during taxi (not an overrun at all) are hardly likely to be related. as to concerns about regularity; it happens often(ish) without snow and ice, so there will be more with more ice. Here in the UK we like to everexaggerate the effects of snow in the media (preferably in London, which gets far less snow than most of the rest) and we were regularly reminded a Cypriot passenger jet managed a similar slide this time last year. There are things like arrestor systems being developed and implemented; some incidents may become case studies for those but otherwise they have no real impact rather than add to the dail list of closed runways. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All an incident like this one deserves is a sentence or two on the airline's insidents section. As per above, fails
WP:AIRCRASH. Spikydan1 (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2010 (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.