Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines Flight 1572 (2nd nomination)
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 keep. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
American Airlines Flight 1572
AfDs for this article:
- American Airlines Flight 1572 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable per
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominator. ]
- Note: ]
- Keep. First of all, please note that WP:EVENT guideline, as there is a lasting effect: It is one of six aviation accidents the script of Charlie Victor Romeo consists of, which also shows that the incident enjoys a long-lasting media coverage. Furthermore, there is sufficient in-depth coverage in a multitude of sources, ranging from initial news report to later summaries like whole book chapters. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association refers to Flight 1572 as a "Landmark Accident", which might even be used as an indicator that is does pass WP:AIRCRASH after all, as it had an industry-wide impact on procedures and regulations.--FoxyOrange (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See ]
- As I stated above, I think Flight 1572 passes WP:NOTABLE guideline (in your words: not even close, but a definite fail). To me, this sounds like a quite long shot. Could you please elaborate your reasons for this assumption? Best regards--FoxyOrange (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems like more of an exaggeration of events. The Landmark Accident thing is slightly exaggerated at the narration parts. In terms of notability, did it involve fatalities? No. Was it a hull-loss? No. Did it have a "major" impact on the airline industry? No. Alone, these guidelines are not met. Just because some papers and authors mentioned or wrote about it does not make it notable. Thanks for your thoughts. ]
- As I stated above, I think Flight 1572 passes
- ]
- See ]
- Keep - per FoxyOrange. That the article needs attention to referencing is not a reason to delete it. Mjroots (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as all the coverage is ]
- Dear Stuartyeates, I'm not sure if you are aware of it, but the book The Limits of Expertise: Rethinking Pilot Error and the Causes of Airline Accidents has a whole chapter (pages 36-50) about Flight 1572. Now, do you really stick with your opinion about "routine coverage"?--FoxyOrange (talk) 07:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 01:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per FoxyOrange and Mjroots. The article is of interest, notable enough to be written about in fact and fiction, and belongs in the encyclopedia. Jusdafax 03:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm not sure why some are thinking this does not pass WP:AIRCRASH is not a Wikipedia policy, but merely a guideline for editors as part of the WikiProject for Aviation. Jguy TalkDone 13:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per points raised by FoxyOrange and Jguy. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Don't forget this is not a vote, just an opportunity to air opinion. Having said that, the article fails just about every relevant guideline, NOTNEWS, AIRCRASH, NOTABILITY, etc. etc..--Petebutt (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to express your opinion as to how a topic that has received in-depth coverage from multiple sources covering several years fails "NOTNEWS" and "NOTABILITY"?--Oakshade (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- At best this incident warrants a sentence in an article of the book mentioned above or a sentence in a list of accidents to that particular aircraft type. A non notable accident is still a non notable accident regardless of any mentions in a book or transitory news coverage.--Petebutt (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "A non notable accident is still a non notable accident regardless of any mentions in a book or transitory news coverage." You're completely at odds with WP:GNG which basically defines notability of a topic if it has received significant coverage from secondary sources. By the way, an entire chapter in a book is not a "mention." --Oakshade (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "A non notable accident is still a non notable accident regardless of any mentions in a book or transitory news coverage." You're completely at odds with
- At best this incident warrants a sentence in an article of the book mentioned above or a sentence in a list of accidents to that particular aircraft type. A non notable accident is still a non notable accident regardless of any mentions in a book or transitory news coverage.--Petebutt (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to express your opinion as to how a topic that has received in-depth coverage from multiple sources covering several years fails "NOTNEWS" and "NOTABILITY"?--Oakshade (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This topic has had very in-depth coverage years after the incident, easily passing WP:GNG and concerns for "NOTNEWS" are negated by the continued coverage. --Oakshade (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Oakshade, among others. This whole discussion was launched by improvident reliance on ]
- Please read ]
- 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.