Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Airlines Flight 1086: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:27, 17 March 2015

Delta Airlines Flight 1086

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minor air traffic accident. No fatalities. Not much by way of injuries. No significant technical issues. Just not notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

24 people were injured and 5 required hospitalization. This should be added to the article. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This accident is very similar to QANTAS flight 1. That flight ran off the runway and damaged property to. If this article is deleted then the other article should be deleted to, but that article hasn't been considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.105.26 (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Yes, keep, per precedent in Qantas Flight 1, and TWA Flight 843, among others. Both well established articles here similar to DA1086 here. Responding to this !vote, my own !vote appears below. Juneau Mike (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - strong possibility that the a/c will be declared a write-off due to damage sustained and age. If this happens then the accident will meet the generally accepted threshold to sustain an article. Mjroots (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What difference does it make if it's a write-off due to age, i.e. that it makes no financial sense to repair it? The "generally accepted threshold" is meant as a rough measure of severity of the incident, is it not? Alakzi (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Alakzi: - had this been a two-year old aircraft, then it is likely that it would have been repaired. This aircraft is nearly 28 years old. Given the amount of damage to the port wing, it is very likely an economic write-off. The community has decided over many years of argument that hull loss is one of the major factors in pushing an accident up the notability scale. That is not to say that a hull-loss is a prerequisite for an article, nor is the requirement for a death, or a set number of deaths. Obviously the more deaths there are, the easier it is to argue the case for notability. Mjroots (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is there an explanation why that is? Why will this incident be more notable if the aircraft is written off? Alakzi (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with waiting. Close this AfD and re-discuss later. -- Y not? 14:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even considering deletion is crazy. Meets ALL criteria of WP:GNG Major crash, airport closed, lots of coverage. In contrast, Wikipedia covers individual episodes of TV shows, which shows Wikipedia rules and decisions are really biased and arbitrary.Wowee Zowee public (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wowee Zowee public: WP:OTHER. There's no claim of notability, the article is based on a single source, and it fails WP:AIRCRASH. Am I missing something?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, you are missing that there are more than 80 articles. It is just that WP hasn't yet included them. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, you are missing more! WP:AIRCRASH gives guidelines for aircraft articles, airline articles, and small plane crashes. It does not cover airline crashes. So WP:AIRCRASH is not the write guideline to quote, muchas WP:PORN isn't either. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:AIRCRASH was raised because of notability mentioned there. Don't see notability addressed here. WP:NOTNEWS too.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2015 in aviation. Aside from lack of fatalities, skidding off the runway and coming to a halt is not even a hull loss. Relatively minor incident. If we are about to include every such incident, the article namespace would inflate to several hundreds new entries. Brandmeister^talk 16:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of articles about individual episodes of TV shows. WP does not ration bandwidth Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Brandmeister: - did you read my comment above. I held off starting an article on this accident for the stated reason, but would expect a decision to be made on the aircraft within a month. Mjroots (talk)
@Brandmeister:The fact that there were no fatalities or that the aircraft has not yet been declared a hull loss is not a limiting factor. It did not just "skid off the runway and come to a halt." It was a serious aviation accident and meets the criteria for notability. There are lots of well-developed aviation articles on similar or less-serious incidents, e.g. Southwest Airlines Flight 1455 and JetBlue Airways Flight 292. Darkest Tree Talk 17:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Serious in what way? If there's a serious malfunction leading to notable consequences, then yes, but so far I don't see any. In case of Southwest Airlines Flight 1455 the airport installed EMAS, while JetBlue Airways Flight 292 looks like borderline case to me. Last year a Singapore Airlines Airbus A380 with 494 people made an emergency landing due to cabin depressurization, triggering oxygen masks deployment, but I didn't decide to start an article even on that (it was even removed from the Singapore Airlines article). Brandmeister^talk 18:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not serious? I'm sorry, maybe you don't understand what a big deal it is when a commercial passenger aircraft runs off the end of the runway and and goes up the side of an embankment, smashing up the aircraft, and stops a few meters short of falling into a body of water. And if you are worried about "the article namespace inflating to several hundred new entries," well, I have bad news for you. You should see how many new articles are created on Wikipedia every week. It's a lot more than a few hundred. And yet somehow the WP servers handle it. Darkest Tree Talk 20:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: This is not as crash but aircraft overshooting the runway (incident). No fatalities, no aftermath and does not matter what investigation report / NTSB comes out with, this incident will never be significant enough. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. This flight did not overshoot the runway. It crashed into the seawall in the middle and side of the runway, not the end. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Wowee Zowee public, I am quoting just three of the several references provided in the article: 1) This, 2) This and 3) This. All three reports say that the aircraft overshot the runway (Unless I missed something). Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before you say "other crap exists", these articles are not crap. TACA Flight 110, Southwest Airlines Flight 812, Southwest Airlines Flight 2294, 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion. None of these planes were damaged at all or much. This article about the Delta flight, the left wing is busted up pretty bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowee Zowee public (talk • contribs) 22:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All four articles you cited resulted in operation directive changes. Not sure about this one (and I doubt there will be one) SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So we are going to base our decision to keep or delete this article on whether some airline changes their operating policies? May I assume we'll be keeping it until that happens or doesn't happen? Darkest Tree Talk 17:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Not significant event. That type of events occurs twice or more per month around the world. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 18:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it is rare for LaGuardia and created so much buzz that even the BBC reported it as its #2 story. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability at all. Regarding the comments above, we don't wait preemptively. If the accident happens to be a hull loss the article can be re-created.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

deletion then re-creation is very disruptive. If there is a redirect, it is less disruptive. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually quite notable and hull loss is not the deciding criterion. Darkest Tree Talk 18:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Besides not a hull loss, no injuries and no apparent changes to procedures or regulations.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Delta Air Lines#Incidents and accidents. Runway overruns are more common than crashes, but they are not routine events either. The incident should be covered, but it does not require a separate article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to LaGuardia Airport#Accidents and incidents Minor injuries, little inconvenience caused, and that one line sums up everything about the incident concisely unless we find out later some kind of neglect caused the incident. Nate • (chatter) 21:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Maybe this turns out to be notable. Otherwise, redirect to LaGuardia Airport#Accidents and incidents with a link from Delta Air Lines#Accidents and incidents. Epic Genius (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS, but no prejudice against a redirect to LaGuardia Airport#Accidents and incidents. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 22:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete content and redirect to LaGuardia Airport#Accidents and incidents and/or Delta Air Lines#Accidents and incidents. Aria1561 (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and WP:NOTNEWS. No need to wait. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: It's now another five days, and there are no new recent sources that might help establish notability. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, yet the article sources are either news reports from within a day or so of the crash (ten days old), the week-old NTSB second update (plus one article referencing it), and an Economist blog entry saying the accident was no big deal (i.e., not notable). This is still a clear delete. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP FFS - This is plainly news. Know why? I SAW IT ON THE NEWS. In a country different than the one this occurred in. It was covered internationally. So smug assertions that WP:NOTNEWS applies are simply wrong.96.51.16.28 (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's plainly news. Did you actually read WP:NOTNEWS before citing it? It says Wikipedia is NOT and NEWSpaper and so doesn't report on every minor incident like a newspaper would. I think you've misinterpreted its meaning but your argument is actually an argument for deletion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the news because it's notable. And your argument that an argument against deletion is actually an argument for deletion is really an argument against taking you seriously. Darkest Tree Talk 17:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the news because it's newsworthy. Which is not the same as notable. 86.5.31.8 (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And whether you like it or not, WP:NOTNEWS tells us what Wikipedia isn't - it's part of the What Wikipedia Is Not series of policies. Reinforcing that it is news without explaining why it is notable is a poor argument for keeping this article. I'm sorry that is the case, but that doesn't change what was written. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I think WP:AIRCRASH (being an essay, rather than a guideline or policy) is pretty silly at the best of times, and this doesn't even rise to the level of meeting those criteria. Airports are closed for storms and fuel spills all the time, so the suggestion that the airport closure makes this a subject worth covering is silly. If someone wants to mention this elsewhere, they can, but it doesn't warrant a stand-alone article. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't violate WP:AIRCRASH. Some people just read the title, WP:SOMETHING. However, if you actually read aircrash, it is about airplane or airline articles, not crash articles. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it plenty - I've participated in extensive discussions about its interpretation and application. I'm here because I'm an AFD regular, not because I'm an airplane article regular. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. You have to be kidding me that this would even be considered for deletion? You would have to delete, no joke, 50% of the articles on Wikipedia if you applied the same criteria used in the arguments for deleting this article. The fact that no one was killed or really injured in the incident does not detract from the seriousness of what happened in the aviation world. The fact that no one died was really a matter of luck—if the aircraft had slid a few more feet over the top of the berm, everyone could have died. Check out this well-developed article on a very similar incident: Southwest Airlines Flight 1455. Clearly notable, clearly a keeper. Darkest Tree Talk 17:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And let me add that if we're going to delete this article, then we'd better delete this other well-developed article too: JetBlue Airways Flight 292, because no one died and the aircraft sustained far less damage than Delta 1086. (Note: this is not a challenge to the deletionists to do it, just an example of the flawed logic being used to argue for deletion of Delta 1086). Darkest Tree Talk 17:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That there are other articles that should be deleted is no reason to keep this one. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the final report is released. It might yet turn out to be notable. 86.5.31.8 (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the article can be recreated if that is the case. We don't work the other way around. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the final report makes it noteworthy (which I highly doubt), we can recreate the article, but presently it certainly is not notable. - The ChampionMan 1234 22:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Keep~~ Please Reconsider—Article Improved. I have done some major work on the article, added a lot of material sourced from the NTSB. The aircraft skidded out of control for several thousand feet and destroyed about 940 feet of perimeter fence. I think that this accident clearly meets the thresholds for notability. I'd appreciate if you all would take a look and reconsider. Thanks. Darkest Tree Talk 01:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article appears to have gone through a large restructure since it's nomination. Here's what has changed. More importantly, 16 good references about the flight let it fly (geddit it's a plane... I'm sorry) by WP:GNG. I suggest anyone who has voted to maybe take another look at it. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took another look, and see no reason to change my mind. Indeed, one of the cited references, from The Economist (currently FN12) takes as its premise that this is a "prototypical airline accident", which argues against notability. The bulk of the article's additions come from a primary source, the latest NTSB report, and I removed a citation to a Wikipedia article, by definition not a reliable source. Barring some startling future revelation, this simply isn't notable. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saying we can't use NTSB reports on plane crashes is like saying we can't use NASA documents on spaceflight. Except that the NTSB has an additional degree of separation from the crashes that NASA doesn't have from spaceflight. You are grasping at straws. And I didn't choose The Economist ref and I don't care about it. I would gladly get rid of it. There is no such thing as a prototypical airline crash. Darkest Tree Talk 04:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me: as a primary source, the NTSB report does nothing to establish notability. You can certainly use it for the usual primary-source information. I'm saddened, but not surprised, to see "grasping at straws" enter the discussion. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, my apologies, you are not grasping at straws. Thank you for clarifying. But I do still believe the subject is notable. Darkest Tree Talk 15:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The NTSB is not a primary source. They are completely independent from Delta or the New York and New Jersey Port Authority, who run LGA. Statements from those two would be primary sources. Mjroots (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is in part. While they might be independent of the airline, the report is still a technical incident report that requires interpretation by secondary sources. NTSB and other government reports aren't really "coverage" because they demonstrate no editorial discretion as to whether or not the subject is notable, and thus worthy of coverage which is the point of our reliance on that coverage (per WP:GNG). "Coverage" is guaranteed because the NTSB must prepare a report whether an airliner skidded off a runway or a Cesna ran into a hangar, yes? Interpretation of that report by genuine secondary sources would absolutely be significant coverage from reliable sources. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While some editors have clearly spent a great deal of effort writing what is otherwise an excellent article, there's no indication that this topic will have any lasting impact. Unless the incident results in changes to procedures or equipment, it's unlikely that it will be remembered and written about in the future. It's just news, and will be forgotten a year from now. Pburka (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strong media and public interest that is likely to continue in the future. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE Delete content and redirect to Delta Air Lines#Accidents and incidents. --Nockayoub (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand your comment. Are you asking to delete the section Delta Air Lines#Accidents and incidents? That is not what this AFD is for. Epic Genius (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Event is certainly notable, and was all over news outlets and shut down LaGuardia for most of the day. It is likely there will be some changes made to policy and procedure as a result of the event. This is still very new, and the article is well written. Give it some time and see if anything comes from it before deciding to get rid of this otherwise fantastic article. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 15:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Major accident that 1)heavily damaged a plane, 2) caused 24 injuries and 3)closed a major airport. Certainly a notable accident. Juneau Mike (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, none of those are things that confer notability on a subject. By that logic, every suburban bus crash or hail storm would be notable. And we still haven't addressed the fact that Wikipedia shouldn't be covering this at all. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have worked on Wikilinking, and categories for cross-referencing. Recommend at this point that discussion be closed with the result as "Keep, no consensus".

On what basis? An abundance of Wikilinks or categories is certainly not a valid reason for keeping something. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Two separate issues, difficult to make single sentences into separate paragraphs. My recommendation to "close: Keep, no consensus" is because there is no consensus in this discussion and in my experience based on many AfD discussions here is unlikely to be. When there is no consensus, generally articles are kept. To all editors, keep in mind I have only one !vote here to keep, everything else is merely a comment. I'm not stacking the straw poll. Juneau Mike (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think consensus here is very easy to deduce. About half the editors here believe it should be kept because it "passes GNG" but haven't even tried to explain how it might overcome WP:NOT. Other keep contributors have relied on a very strained interpretation of WP:AIRCRASH which is a user essay and doesn't enjoy consensus enough to be elevated to policy or guideline. At least one other has been indef'd for trolling. There hasn't been a single policy-based contribution from "team keep". Those favouring deletion have opined that the article attempts to turn Wikipedia into something it is not; a newspaper, and have highlighted that the article relies on editor interpretations of government primary sources. Given that both are clear breaches of policy and that nobody has managed to provide a cohesive argument as to how this passes WP:EVENT, I'd say the closing admin will have a pretty easy job of it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We respectfully disagree here. I give the average (established) editor here much more credit. Everyone, with the exception of said troll (if true) and his ilk, benefit this Wiki. Juneau Mike (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are entitled to as much credit as you and I; it's not a question of their value (or benefit) to the project. Determinations here are made on the basis of weight of policy-based argument. It's a bit hard, therefore, to weigh arguments not based on policy. To recommend, then, that a discussion be closed as keep (in effect, giving weight to weightless arguments) discourages those who might otherwise make policy-based keep arguments, on the basis that the job's been done. It hasn't. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My conclusion, based on long experience here, is that by far the best arguments have been made in favor of "keep" in regards to this article. I know you disagree. Fair enough. Maybe I will see you involved in other articles in the future. Take care. Juneau Mike (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the "arguments" in question your... learn'd... opinion is interesting, to say the least. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your "long experience here" (23 AfDs in 7 years) is interesting also. 50% accuracy is a coin-toss and not a single "delete" vote. Just sayin'. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this is so important to you. I've said my peace on the relevant Delta article here which I believe deserves a "keep". But since you brought it up, I've voted twice to delete, and once to merge. That's 15% of such discussions I have been involved with. But I tend to side on inclusion/relevance and good faith. 'Nuff said. Juneau Mike (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, "not a single delete in a discussion with a definitive result" and one of those was a nomination, not a !vote, how's that? It's of no interest to me beyond your presumptive and instructive "recommendation" to closing admins on the back of your "experience based on many AfD discussions" (a little over 3 discussions a year). It was your claim, not mine. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Juneau Mike, in order to avoid confusion, I've changed the two bolded "keep" mentions in this thread to unbolded and quoted, since you already have a bolded !vote earlier on this page. This will make it easier for whoever closes the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - arguments against deletion due to NOTNEWS have been made. While this event caused significant international media coverage which may provide arguments for deletion as NOTNEWS, one important point that was argued for keep is that this incident could very well cause changes in airline safety. Of significance in the story was this incident was a huge near miss, with the plane almost going in the water. IMHO, that is sure to create changes in airline safety. My humble opinion is wait and see instead of wholesale delete. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the deletionist side's only argument here is WP:NOTNEWS unless I am misinterpreting the discussion. However, if I could just throw in another 2¢, I would say that any significant accident involving a commercial airline flight deserves its own article, regardless of how much it did or didn't make the news. And I would write and contribute to such an article whether or not the subject made the news, inasmuch as I even now read and contribute to articles on air accidents that took place 20 or 30 years ago. Because:
1. There will always be reliable sources in the form of government transportation safety agency reports (notwithstanding troll comments about their usability in an article), and these reports will be extremely factual and unbiased, and won't contain the dumbing-down that the facts suffer anytime the mainstream media attempts to talk about aviation, and
2. This is the big one: air safety is an ongoing, constant evolution, and every major accident contributes in some way to the continuing process of improving air safety; having an article on nearly all significant accidents helps paint the overall picture of this evolution—that overall picture or story arc, if you will, which clearly belongs in an encyclopedia with the depth and breadth of Wikipedia. Darkest Tree Talk 15:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point, but perhaps you could tell us HOW this accident contributes to the ongoing evolution of aviation safety. Because, at present, the article doesn't do so. 86.5.31.8 (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I need to. My point is that any significant air accident is noteworthy enough to have its own article. It's not like this is some vacuous fluff article on pop culture or entertainment. And since no one has mentioned this yet, Wikipedia is NOTPAPER and we're not in danger of running out of server space. Darkest Tree Talk 21:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I vote to keep this on the basis that it was a dramatic near miss - nearly ended up in the drink and fuel tank ruptured. I'm sure there'll be lessons to learn from this.Mattojgb (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This wasn't simply overshooting the runway, but the aircraft went off the side of the runway while still travelling at a relatively high rate of speed...about 100 miles per hour (160 km/h). The incident caused significant damage to the aircraft. It is more than just a one-time news event, but an incident which will likely be referenced in the future when similar accidents occur. I also agree with the remarks by Darkest tree under the comment by FieldMarine a couple comments above. AHeneen (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This just doesn't seem notable. 87.83.31.234 (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 108: / Line 108: @@
 *'''Keep''' I vote to keep this on the basis that it was a dramatic near miss - nearly ended up in the drink and fuel tank ruptured. I'm sure there'll be lessons to learn from this.[[User:Mattojgb|Mattojgb]] ([[User talk:Mattojgb|talk]]) 11:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' This wasn't simply overshooting the runway, but the aircraft went off the side of the runway while still travelling at a relatively high rate of speed...about {{convert|100|mph}}. The incident caused significant damage to the aircraft. It is more than just a one-time news event, but an incident which will likely be referenced in the future when similar accidents occur. I also agree with the remarks by Darkest tree under the comment by FieldMarine a couple comments above. [[User:AHeneen|AHeneen]] ([[User talk:AHeneen|talk]]) 21:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' This just doesn't seem notable. [[Special:Contributions/87.83.31.234|87.83.31.234]] ([[User talk:87.83.31.234|talk]]) 22:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)