Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Continental Flight 61

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.

Continental Flight 61 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log

)

• Keep Johnbibby (talk) 04:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this event will likely be remembered and it's certainly met the requirement of significant coverage. Commercial pilots rarely die in flight and this is the first incident with a commercial pilot over age 60 since congress raised the mandatory retirement age in 2007.--RadioFan (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's an example of safeguards for preventing accidents after a pilot dies working perfectly. Also, I'm not sure at this point if writing an article about the pilot will be a good idea. It might be better to be a part of this article instead. --Revth (talk) 02:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The incident is probably important enough. It's certainly covered by reliable sources. An article on the poor pilot would not be a good idea since he is only known for this incident, sadly. Better to redirect his name to this article. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This incident explains about a recent aviation accident. It has information that is periodically updated with more information the authorities is providing time to time. One example is the article Air France Flight 447 which was beign updated from time to time. Also, this explains about an incident that may have been fatal if no action was taken. Jerrysmp (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crossing the street on a walk signal meets the requirement of "an incident that may have been fatal if no action was taken" (i.e., that drivers stop), so every time someone crosses the street, let's make an article on their near-death experience! Suffice to say, I seriously doubt that the passengers were in danger - none of the news stories so far has indicated such so show me the sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not trying to point out to "make an article on their near death experience" on any kind of attention-needed event. (especially about a pedestrian crossing a street. I find that really weird), Nor did I completely say that the passengers were in danger of any kind. I just did not point out what I was saying. I meant to simply say that I find this article notable, that's all! Jerrysmp (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I looked at the
  Notability Guidelines and don't see how this article violates them. (Please explain to me if I've got that wrong.) Keep current title as that's how people are going to think of the incident. Nick Levine (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Merge After reading other people's comments, I'd be satisfied if
    Continental Flight 61 redirected to a short paragraph elsewhere. Nick Levine (talk) 09:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete as WP is
  not a collection of news reports. Yes, this has had a lot of coverage, but is a minor incident in the context of notable flights; it wasn't an accident, but simply a death on board (albeit quite a significant one). Also, it's very much not the first time it's happened. It merits an entry on Continental Airlines's article (which I see it already has), but this article doesn't have enough substance to stand on its own. onebravemonkey 08:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, not important...but can be merged at
  talk) 10:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete not notable news today, not the first aircrew (or passenger) to die on an aircraft unrelated to the actual flight in the hundred year history of aviation. MilborneOne (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Some of the above positions relate to advocacy and the public interest. I have a hard time avoiding this myself and often just mention my bias to have it recognized as a bias, not an argument. If you start arguing public good, maybe you will get your controversial pages legally banned etc. Moralizing and concerns about effect on social and legal results should be avoided but I know it is tough. I guess I would lean towards Merge with related topics if this incident is used in reliable sources as an argument related to these other articles ) like aviation regulations ). I guess I would argue against bio a dying in flight probably does not make entire life notable. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now: This flight may become noteworthy because two years ago the FAA raised the mandatory retirement age for pilots from 60 to 65. This flight may cause the FAA to rethink this change (because the pilot was 61). If they do indeed rethink that, then this flight would be newsworthy. Otherwise, it would not. So if in the next 4-6 months the FAA takes no action, bring up this debate again. Dems on the move (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Two more reasons why I'd like to defer this for a few more months:

1. This may raise a controversy as to whether the passangers should have been informed of what happened
2. This may flight may change the physical exams pilots have to undergo, as this pilot was in supposedly in good health (i.e. he passed his physicals in the last 6 months)

Dems on the move (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• defer for two weeks I think it's too soon to say whether this will be notable in the long term or not, and I can foresee it going either way. After a period of time, e.g. two weeks, to let the immediate news reports settle down we will start to see whether coverage has continued or not. If I were the supreme god of Wikipedia, I'd put this discussion on ice right now and restart it with a procedural renomination two weeks from now. Fortunately, for many reasons, not least of which is my sanity, I am not any sort of god or other supreme being. Thryduulf (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given that this is already well out of the news with no indication of anything lasting coming from it I think it is safe to say that it is not a notable event. Thryduulf (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A small little death. Everyone lives, happy day. In a few days everyone will have forgotten about it.  Cargoking  talk  17:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Substantial news coverage and aviation incidents are often remembered well after the fact. 173.96.182.183 (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a minor news item. Thousands of people die of heart attacks every day. This is why planes have two pilots. The aircraft wasn't diverted, the passengers were unaware. Flight was not even delayed because of it. I am sorry for his family but it doesn't need an article on Wikipedia. Drawn Some (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- We seem to get an article on every minor aviation incident. Many of these need to be deleted. Many others need to be summarised and merged elsewhere. I get fed up with these minor incidents appearing in AFD lists.
  WP:NOTNEWS. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete People die on the job all the time. A pilot dying during a flight is not notable. It is a
  WP:NOTNEWS. There is no inherent notability of news stories which involve aviation. Edison (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Wait a month then see if it's notable or not... personally, I don't think so, since the flight was carrying two cockpit crews, so had four pilots. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Minor incident, one-off news item with no further significance. A mention at the Continental Airlines page is sufficient (but not necessary). Julius Sahara (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  WP:NOTNEWS. This event is a novelty, not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Wow, somebody died and it's all over the news. It must go down as the least deadly day in human history if this was big. Everybody lands safely. Nope, I can't think why this would be notable. At least they avoided the river this time. --
  •wicke 22:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete according to the article's sources this is not a very ununual event - nn, just news. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a news service, and this is old news. Ex nihil (talk) 05:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Flights that suffer an incident that could have put the plane at significant risk of danger but either totally or mostly avert the danger are notable. See US Airways Flight 1549 and Aloha Airlines Flight 243. If this article goes down, Aloha Airlines Flight 243 should be deleted under the same reasoning because only one person died in that incident. However, a flight where a passenger dies is usually not notable because it will not affect the safety of the flight unless the cause of death was contagious. Jesse Viviano (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment not sure Flight 1549 (landing on water) and Flight 243 (big hole in aircraft) have anything to do with this flight or the reasons for deletion or otherwise. MilborneOne (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Agreed. This plane wasn't in any substantial danger for any length of time. The backup crew was available and finished the flight quite normally. Both of the incidents mentioned were the sort of thing that could, given the circumstances, have ended badly. This wasn't likely to. Now...had none of the pilots been available, and had someone else landed the plane, then maybe we'd be talking notability. --
      Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 21:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Delete. This is by no means comparable as an incident/accident to the others listed as "airlines incidents and accidents". The aircraft has been nowhere near danger. A summary of the event could be merged into "Continental Airlines".Jerbees (talk) 11:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete was a news story but no evidence the flight is encyclopedically notable. If the sitution regarding the pilot further changes pilot regs, they can be covered and this article discussed there. StarM 01:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not

• Delete This article was created under a string of recentism when this was on the news. Now that this story has had it's 15 minutes, no one is reporting on this anymore. This is different from
  WP:NOT#NEWS pure and simple. Tavix |  Talk  19:06, 25 June 2009 (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.