Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwest Airlines Flight 1905

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.

Southwest Airlines Flight 1905

Southwest Airlines Flight 1905 (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)

Basically this is a big bag of "so what", this sort of thing happens frequently and there is no need whatsoever for a WP article about it. The incident - it's not even an accident - fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable. If it somehow becomes notable in the future in can be recreated. Hairhorn (talk) 03:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete relatively minor incident, no fatalities, no injuries.. non issue. -Tracer9999 (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails the project guideline for notability as there were no injuries nor was there a written-off airframe. Binksternet (talk) 04:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This was a very minor aviation incident; no injuries or any reported damage to the aircraft. This fails
  WP:AIRCRASH guidelines for mentions in Airport, Airline, and Aircraft articles. It seems to easily fail stand alone article criteria as well. I am not finding anything on this on Wikinews either. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete nonnotable airplane skid, it's as if someone wrote an article on some car that slid into the curb -- 70.24.186.245 (talk) 07:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep for now; at least don't speedy close and delete pre-emptively -- it is unclear whether where is serious damage to the aircraft. The photos I saw on the TV news showed the 737 resting on the No. 1 engine nacelle, which is not something "that's gonna buff right out". We'll know more later. MCB (talk) 07:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Remember
    WP:CRYSTALBALL. That something might be made of this is pure conjecture. WP:AIRCRASH does say hull losses are notable but for mention in airport, or airline articles. It doesn't automatically make them notable for standalones....William 11:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment- in my own little bit of OR the photos I have seen show the engine well clear of the ground. YSSYguy (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability guidelines. Minor accident....William 11:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; does not appear to pass Wikipedia:Notability (events). bobrayner (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable just a bad day at the office. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a nice way of putting it. I might borrow that for some future AfDs! bobrayner (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no evidence that this incident warrants a standalone article, too soon to assume it is a notable incident. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - a very minor incident, equal to a car ending up in a ditch during a snowfall. It is very non-notable and does not warrant an article about it. - Ahunt (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It does however fit in well in the template in which it appears: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Aviation_accidents_and_incidents_in_2012 in so much that it is indeed an "incident", despite no injuries or hull loss... Perhaps the template should be renamed to simply "Aviation accidents"? mikewhitcombe (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - so was that "keep because it was an incident"? The word 'incident' is in the template because events such as hijackings and bombing attempts are not accidents. There seems to be no further coverage of this event at all, and of the two websites that are the 'go-tos' for info about air crashes, it is only in the wikibase section of aviation-safety.net and Avherald doesn't mention it at all. YSSYguy (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Can be recreated if it turns out to be something major. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a
  run of the mill incident. Bearian (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Maybe I should write an article about the time I fell off my bike? No.
  AutomaticStrikeout 21:00, 15 November 2012 (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.