Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air France Flight 7

: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  05:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

=[[Air France Flight 7]]=

:{{la|Air France Flight 7}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Air France Flight 7}})

Fails notability requirements. Two airplanes bumped into each other. Contrary to what the popular news media would like you to think, this is not an unusual occurence. There were no deaths, culpability is irrelevant, and while some passengers may have been a bit inconvenienced there are no long-term effects of this incident worth mentioning. The incident is listed already at Air France accidents and incidents (scroll down to the very bottom). Fails the enduring notability requirement of WP:EVENT (see section "Inclusion criteria"). Also see WP:AIRCRASH, though it's just an essay. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 16:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment: some prior discussion took place here, here, and here. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 16:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment So it's not unusual for a plane to be spun about while full of passengers? 64.229.100.45 (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Does it matter? We don't have an article about the time my brother drove a van of college kids off a cliff and survived. But yes, aircraft collisions do happen, and they're not really that newsworthy (or article worthy). The only reason the media is freaking out so much about this one is the dramatic film footage. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 14:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm saying the rationale is misleading, since it's not the common occurrance that a van full of kids drives off a cliff. It may be common that there are fender benders, but claiming this is like most of the others is misleading. Whether it is notable enough for an article is separate from the claim that it is common. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • But its unusual-ness does not necessarily make it worthy of an article. Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It needs to be a notable incident in the long run, as per WP:EVENT. For example, if the FAA creates some new rules or if there's a new law passed as a result of this incident, then it gains notability because of that. The comparison to a "fender-bender" somewhere below is apt -- in this case it was a fender bender where the vehicle that got hit spun out. That inandof itself does not make it notable; the pervasiveness of the incident in sensationalist media reports make it seem notable because, well, sensational news stories sell. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 05:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge all information from this article to Air France article. --KzKrann (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Per the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents, the relevant WikiProject only considers an incident notable if it involves a major airliner (which this one does) AND any of the following:
  • The accident was fatal to humans; or
  • The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport; or
  • The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry.

: In this case

:# no lives were lost;

:# the incident involved damage to both aircraft, but there is no indication that the damage was serious;

:# it is still too soon to see if any changes in procedures or regulations arise from this incident.

: Therefore the incident does not yet merit an article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

:*Something interesting just crop up, there was an air crash Air France Flight 007 back in 1962 and since that article has met all the criteria for WP:AIRCRASH (versus this current media circus fanfare), we should therefore delete the current newsy page and REDIRECT it the one I just mentioned. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 06:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Air France accidents and incidents#2010s as there is already a section about this article. Seedp (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC) — Seedp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Weak delete per WikiDan. wackywace 18:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The CRJ-700 suffered substantial damage, per the [http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/448494-air-france-jet-clips-smaller-plane-new-yorks-jfk-airport-2.html Photo on Pprune]. Thus the incident meets WP:AIRCRASH criteria 2. I'm keeping an open mind on whether or not the accident is notable enough to sustain an article or not for the moment. One would hope that this AfD get to run the full 7 days, which gives time for further info to come into the public domain that will assist in deciding whether to vote keep or delete. Mjroots (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

:*Note: Consensus is not about voting although voting is a part of consensus building. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 19:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete Clearly does not meet notability criteria - it's just a "fender bender". I get the impression that the level of media noise about it can be acribed to the fact that one of the planes involved is an A380. Roger (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think it's because of the A380. It's more likely because the CRJ was spun 90-degrees in the collision. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete F-HPJD [http://nsa19.casimages.com/img/2010/11/04/101104013422800009.jpg already had a ground collision] in November 2010 at CDG with an AF A330-200, it stayed out of service during 3 weeks, and it's not mentionned anywhere. The same kind of incident (or even worse) occured in Madrid in 2006 between [http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-France-(Regional/Embraer-EMB-135ER-(ERJ-135ER)/1099754/M/ a Regional ERJ-135 and a Thai Airways B747], the ERJ got repaired and is still flying today, and there's still nothing about it. We're not gonna list every ground collision or runway skid-off. The only reason that makes it so "noisy" in the media is this video footage of the incident, we wouldn't even have heard about it otherwise. Slasher-fun (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete and if not, wait a few months and prod it. Nobody will care in September. ---- Selket Talk 19:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Articles that have been discussed at AfD are not eligible for PROD. Thryduulf (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Regardless the article was already previously PRODed and dePRODed, so it's not eligible anyway. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 23:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough for independent coverage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete : Slasher-fun and Roger addresses the issues just as well as I can, nothing remarkable or noteworthy about this to justify own page, maybe worth a line or two on the Air France and or A380 pages. Mtking (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Actually, the damage to both aircraft was serious, with both aircraft being pulled from service for what appears to be costly repairs. So I think it meets #2 and possibly #3. That said, however, I don't think it merits it's own article at this time. Cla68 (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment if this is kept, it definitely needs to be renamed. The Comair flight was the one that was spun 90 degrees, not the Air France flight. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment regardless of if this is deleted or kept, the current name should redirect to Air France Flight 007. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

:*Comment I concur, note that I've tweaked my standing into DELETE & REDIRECT instead. Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 06:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete. Nobody died, no wide-ranging effects or results as yet (and probably unlikely to have), not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete: This incident has definitely been blown out of proportion by the media, partly due to the appeal of the A380, amongst other factors. I feel that this incident is not worthy of a separate article yet, as preliminary findings from the investigation are still unknown. I can see why some would disagree, but as has been already said, there were no casualties and the incident did not occur during active flight. Despite the media attention, I really don't see how this incident is any different to the one that the Air France A380 aircraft was victim to in November last year, in terms of damage caused and disruption to services. So to sum up, it is not yet known who is culpable and so there is no need to make a mountain out of a molehill at this stage, since Wikipedia is not a news website. I doubt that similar types of large aircraft would gather this much of attention. Let's see if the findings from the investigation result in any policy changes for airports worldwide... Ivowilliams (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment From this [http://blog.seattlepi.com/flyinglessons/2011/04/14/a380-collision-mirrors-plane-vs-plane-bout-from-years-ago/ article], it is estimated that 27,000 ramp accidents happen a year. Picking on the very similar incident to this one from the same article, involving a Boeing 777 and an Airbus A320, this incident (or any other ground incidents for that matter) seem to be ignored on Wikipedia articles for the aircraft concerned, and only a mention of the number of incidents (without going into further details), and only serious/hull-loss accidents are mentioned, and have a separate article. Thus, I don't think it a serious enough issue to even deserve a mention in the main A380 article, let alone a separate article in itself. A mention on the Air France article, yes, but the accident is not really due to a design flaw of either the A380 or the CRJ700, so it would be blowing things out of a proprotion. A degree of consistency is needed here, IMO... User talk:Ivowilliams 22:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - doesn't meet any of the aircrash guidelines for inclusion. Yes it made the news, but it's not a significant incident. Happens with other planes all the time, it only got attention due to it being an A380. No merge either. Canterbury Tail talk 23:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think that's why it got all that attention. The wild whipping about of the CRJ is the most likely reason why it got coverage, not because it was a A380. As for "it happens all the time", does it really happen all the time that planes in ground accidents get flipped around by 90 degrees, while being filled with passengers? 64.229.100.45 (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Well as I said [http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-France-(Regional/Embraer-EMB-135ER-(ERJ-135ER)/1099754/M/ here for example], and I'm pretty sure we can find others. Slasher-fun (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - not a significant incident Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete, without prejudice to re-creation if the NTSB report results in changes to operating procedures at JFK or the CRJ-700 is declared a write-off. At the moment, the incident just falls below the notability threshold IMHO. Mjroots (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

: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.