Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Canada Flight 190

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 03:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air Canada Flight 190

Air Canada Flight 190 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A number of people have commented that they do not feel this article is notable; I happen to agree. May I request that users familiarise themselves with this discusion and these guidlines first. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the flight number (F. 190) retired because of injury or death? If it is, then it is notable and you should keep it. If not (the number is still in use) then *delete. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 21:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: retiring of the flight number is wildly inconsistent among airlines (some do only for fatal crashes, some don't even for fatal crashes), and I can't see that as a reasonable criterion for notability when objective criteria like death, injury, damage to aircraft, or press/media coverage are available. --MCB (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Jared Preston (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hard to argue with that, and I'm glad nobody was hurt, but this is not a notable incident. Mandsford (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Er, Mandsford, you might want to read the article: 10 injuries, 6 serious. --MCB (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Among the most serious of the injuries was a broken collar bone. The last of the individuals was discharged from hospital at 15:30, 7.5 hours after they touched down in Calgary. This may be noteworthy if it changes flight standards (e.g. wake turbulance avoidance guidelines at altitude), but the event itself isn't (yet) notable. Jasmantle (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep; wide public interest and media coverage of an event (Google News cites 94 current stories, including every major Canadian and many foreign newspaper and TV networks, as well as aviation news outlets) in which there were serious injuries on a major airline flight, and the investigation includes malfunction of flight director (autopilot) and other equipment (that is, not just simple turbulence). There is no wide consensus for the so-called task force notability guidelines, which exist only as a proposal on a talk page (and, to my mind, have some serious shortcomings). Even under those guidelines, however, this article qualifies ("results in serious injury or loss of life.") --MCB (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weakish Delete for now - I'm somewhat on the fence. It has received a lot of media exposure, but Wikipedia isn't the news. At this point, I tend to think it's likely clear air turbulence, which is generally not considered a notable occurrence (in the Wikipedia sense) even if there are injuries. However, there are some suggestions that it is something different, which may make the incident notable. The incident is being investigated by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, so if we delete it and it turns out to have been caused by something novel - like software failure - then we can recreate it. And to be clear, I have contributed to the article somewhat, although I also tagged it with {{notability}}. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 21:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now; the injuries alone would pass WP#ADL. Discussion at [pprune.org pprune] suggests this may be a byzantine failure, brought on by a combination of unusual conditions (CAT) and a design vulnerability of the autopilot software. In any case, why rush to delete? Allow the collaboration to occur and see what gels.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not every air accident is individually encyclopedia worthy. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete without prejudice - Not notable per guidelines at the moment, tho it's unclear if there may be some lasting consequences as a result of final reports. If those are forthcoming, have a review at the AATF, and restore if there is a concensus to do so, without needing a formal deletion review, as this is a borderline case. -
  talk) 00:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - the breadth of coverage for this one makes it worth keeping, I believe.
  matt91486 (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - it's an unusually well-written article on an interesting topic. We have other long articles on non-fatal airline incidents, such as the Gimli Glider. David (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - This is a current news item that will likely lack any real long term notability. As
  WP:N says A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability. Wikipedia is not a news service. --neonwhite user page talk 02:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Per the guidelines referenced here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force#Notability guidelines, which is referenced by the "these guidelines" link above (see on the second page, the reference "Proposed notability guidelines are available for comment on the talk page"), this incident would be notable. This is per the proposed guideline rules "it involves unusual circumstances" (positively) and "It involves a scheduled or charter air carrier and results in serious injury or loss of life" ("potentially debilatating spinal injuries"—per [1]—are serious, though I concede the wp article doesn't report this yet).

Also, just as a side note: It seems to me that policy should precede AfD rather than the other way around. "We'll delete everything just in case the policy we're making says it's not notable," seems a bit cart before horse. CoyneT ^talk 00:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. Did you actually read the article you linked? It said that earlier reports suggested "potentially debilitating spinal injures". That article made it very clear that the actual injuries were just "soft tissue" injuries - i.e.: bumps and bruises. Also, turbulence is hardly an unusual circumstance. Resolute 19:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - 10 injuries, 6 of them serious, emergency treatment at hospitals, multiple independent
  reliable sources with coverage of the incident, this clearly falls within the criteria at WP:ADL. I think these characteristics make the subject of the article highly notable. The article should be expanded once there is a published determination of the true cause of the "computer failure" that is alleged by the pilot to have occurred — a very interesting allegation, especially as it comes from an experienced pilot who can be presumed to understand the difference between abnormal ("computer failure") and normal processes of autopilot disengagement. - Neparis (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - not a notable incident, aircraft landed safely, all the serious injuries were that serious the people involved were released from hospital within a few hours, lots of media exposure appears to only relate to North America not the rest of the world. I am not sure what ifs are a good reason to keep an article without reliable evidence. MilborneOne (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now - There is a pretty good chance that this event - even though the aircraft is reusable, nobody got killed, and the flight number didn't get retired - will be significant in that it will cause a meaningful change in understanding of some air disturbance phenonomina, or worldwide change in flight procedures. If there is such a learning then this article might remain standalone or be merged into the article about the causal factor. If the causal factor turns out to be non-notable e.g. that a pilot kicked the control stick, then delete it. But until then, and if it is within wiki guidelines, we could just leave this here as a reminder.Jasmantle (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    WP:CRYSTAL is not a valid keep argument. Resolute 19:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Let's document this flight when we know what caused it - if there is something notworthy. Until then, it's news -- and an ongoing investigation. Jasmantle (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seriously. "six serious injuries" meant a trip to a hospital that lasted a couple hours because a few people bumped their heads. Planes hit turbulence all the time. On occasion, the people that disregard guidelines on always wearing seatbelts get tossed around. This wasn't even the first incident of this type in the past year in Canada.
  WP:RECENT. Resolute 19:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per MCB. GreenJoe (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:NOT#NEWS. This isn't encyclopedically notable at the present time; it's just a news story. Transwiki to WikiNews, and delete without prejudice against recreation if there should be some genuinely encyclopedic repercussions or aftereffects at a later date. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep this is more than transient news; that there are no fatalities in this case makes it even more notable.DGG (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. In my opinion this is should be a news article, not a Wikipedia article. The comments from MilborneOne reflect my feelings on the matter. PKT (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also note there was another article (Air Canada Flight 190 incident) created that now redirects to the article we are debating here. PKT (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete SYSS Mouse (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an article on a flight.... why should this be deleted? if this should be deleted, so should all the articles concerning flight incidents..... Messiisking (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Messiisking (talk • contribs) 17:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is non-trivial information. zoney ♣ talk 20:06, 26 January 2008 (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.