Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines Flight 31

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.  Sandstein  16:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines Flight 31

American Airlines Flight 31 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Short article on an airline incident not likely to have long term notability. The incident doesn't meet the notability guidance developed by the Aviation WikiProject and detailed at

• Delete- As it stands, this event isn't notable, and I doubt anything will happen to change that. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per nom.
  talk) 20:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Where are all these events coming from? BTW, I seriously doubt someone from the FAA doesn't know when last an aircraft had to use its slides. He may not have been able to supply an exact date, but he'd have an idea. Far too regular an occurence, and fails the draft
  WP:AIRCRASH guidlines to boot. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Not so hasty, please. A few days to allow the story to unfold seem reasonable. There were injuries, hence it is an

BITE. LeadSongDog (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment. I see no evidence of BITE-ing going on here. Even the presence of injuries does not make this particularly notable. If some changes are made to policy years down the line, this incident might be mentioned in passing in the applicable article, assuming it even plays a role. 23skidoo (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Neither do I. My intent was precautionary. The unseemly haste to delete a new article can be very discouraging for a novice creator. It does no harm to wait a few days to see how it evolves. LeadSongDog (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just a news story. If something comes of it then that information can be added to other articles, for instance on the airplane model or articles on airline safety. Northwestgnome (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOT#NEWS. JohnCD (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment. NOT#NEWS isn't a justification for deletion. Perhaps for a transwiki to wn. LeadSongDog (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't tend to go "per nom" but there really isn't anything I could add to state the case better. Minor incident, no crash, no one died. These things happen all the time. Nothing to suggest notability in any way. 23skidoo (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm usually kind to flight articles, but this, as of now, doesn't have any extraordinary details. They smelled smoke and took it back to LAX. The smoke didn't even come from a fire. --Oakshade (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - An event like this is woefully non-notable. It's a non-event that is far from being encyclopedic. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge info - to
  American Airlines accidents and incidents. Incidents causing injury should be mentioned there. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 06:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • comment - if it were major injuries, I'd agree, but we're talking about minor scrapes from sliding out...everyone walked away, no one was taken off in an ambulence even. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - misses the point. The need to deploy masks and chutes reflect emergency measures. Also, the failure of masks to work when called upon is non-trivial.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- another NN aviation incident. Every minor mishap seems to generate an article that has to go through AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable, smoke related air conditioning problems are not rare either are precuationary landings. MilborneOne (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - generally smoke in bleed air reflects deficient maintenance or design. The
    BAe 146, the principle is universal, to avoid poisoning people with pyrolized lube oil. On two-engined ETOPS-180 aircraft, like AAL31, the importance rises greatly as they may have to operate three hours on one engine.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete and
  WP:SNOW. Smoke from an oil leak.[2] Precautions taken. Bumps and bruises on evacuation. Unremarkable malfunction with no evidence of lasting impact. • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - Update: the FAA are investigating the failure of almost half the oxygen masks. A recent Airworthiness Directive pertains.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unless something else comes out from thh FAA review, precautionary does not rise to notable.King Pickle (talk) 00:01, 13 August 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.