Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines Flight 1572 (2nd nomination)

:{{la|American Airlines Flight 1572}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Airlines_Flight_1572_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources|American Airlines Flight 1572}})

Not notable per WP:AIRCRASH. It can be mentioned as an incident at the Bradley International Airport article, but it is not notable enough to have an article about it. I also find it lacking sources and proper information to have an article about it. If you provide 2-3 good citations on the incident at the airport, then that is better. WorldTraveller101^BreaksFixes 17:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. WorldTraveller101^BreaksFixes 17:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

::Note: AfD nomination implies deletion—no need for a separate bullet. czar · · 04:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. First of all, please note that WP:AIRCRASH is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline. Therefore, it should not be sufficient as a sole reason for an AfD nomination. Please also note that the article in question is far too long to be merged into the airport article. As it is rather well written and sufficiently referenced (with the official NTSB investigation report as primary source), an I cannot see where it could be shortened. Otherwise, the reasons given in the first AfD debate are still valid: The incident passes the official WP:EVENT guideline, as there is a lasting effect: It is one of six aviation accidents the script of Charlie Victor Romeo consists of, which also shows that the incident enjoys a long-lasting media coverage. Furthermore, there is sufficient in-depth coverage in a multitude of sources, ranging from initial news report to later summaries like whole book chapters. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association refers to Flight 1572 as a "[http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2006/March/1/Landmark-Accidents-Dark-and-Stormy-Night Landmark Accident]", which might even be used as an indicator that is does pass WP:AIRCRASH after all, as it had an industry-wide impact on procedures and regulations.--FoxyOrange (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

::See WP:NOTABLE. It definitely does not pass these guidelines. I barely call this much of an incident at all. 1 injury, no fatalities, minor aircraft damage. Just because the accident is featured or referenced to in a show, does not mean it is notable. There is a reason why we keep articles, like Air France Flight 447, because that one is actually notable and follows WP:NOTABLE and WP:AIRCRASH. On the other hand, we delete articles like this one, because nothing notable happened to it. Thanks and happy editing. WorldTraveller101^BreaksFixes 19:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

:::As I stated above, I think Flight 1572 passes WP:EVENT, the relevant subject-specific guideline (in a nutshell: The incident has been the subject of enduring, in-depth coverage and/or scientific analysis in a multitude of reliable sources). Now, you are claiming that it would not pass the (more general) WP:NOTABLE guideline (in your words: not even close, but a definite fail). To me, this sounds like a quite long shot. Could you please elaborate your reasons for this assumption? Best regards--FoxyOrange (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

:::: This seems like more of an exaggeration of events. The Landmark Accident thing is slightly exaggerated at the narration parts. In terms of notability, did it involve fatalities? No. Was it a hull-loss? No. Did it have a "major" impact on the airline industry? No. Alone, these guidelines are not met. Just because some papers and authors mentioned or wrote about it does not make it notable. Thanks for your thoughts. WorldTraveller101^BreaksFixes 20:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

::WP:ONLYESSAY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - per FoxyOrange. That the article needs attention to referencing is not a reason to delete it. Mjroots (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete as all the coverage is WP:ROUTINE. The references are automatic regulatory responses to any aircraft incident. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

::Dear Stuartyeates, I'm not sure if you are aware of it, but the book [http://books.google.de/books?id=mMxaYxhu0l0C&pg=PA37&dq=American+Airlines+Flight+1572&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tIILT4_cIsPYiQLonczuAw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=American%20Airlines%20Flight%201572&f=false The Limits of Expertise: Rethinking Pilot Error and the Causes of Airline Accidents] has a whole chapter (pages 36-50) about Flight 1572. Now, do you really stick with your opinion about "routine coverage"?--FoxyOrange (talk) 07:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 01:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

---

• Keep - per FoxyOrange and Mjroots. The article is of interest, notable enough to be written about in fact and fiction, and belongs in the encyclopedia. Jusdafax 03:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not sure why some are thinking this does not pass WP:N. Significant Coverage? Check. Reliable Sources? Not in the article, but the NTSB investigation is there, that seems reliable enough for me. Just needs improvement and expansion on what's there. See WP:PRESERVE. Sources independant of the subject? Again I point to the NTSB investigation as a source in this article. Just because there were no major injuries/deaths and no hull loss does not mean this article fails WP:N. Do keep in mind that WP:AIRCRASH is not a Wikipedia policy, but merely a guideline for editors as part of the WikiProject for Aviation. Jguy _Talk^Done 13:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - per points raised by FoxyOrange and Jguy. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete Don't forget this is not a vote, just an opportunity to air opinion. Having said that, the article fails just about every relevant guideline, NOTNEWS, AIRCRASH, NOTABILITY, etc. etc..--Petebutt (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

::Care to express your opinion as to how a topic that has received in-depth coverage from multiple sources covering several years fails "NOTNEWS" and "NOTABILITY"?--Oakshade (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

:::At best this incident warrants a sentence in an article of the book mentioned above or a sentence in a list of accidents to that particular aircraft type. A non notable accident is still a non notable accident regardless of any mentions in a book or transitory news coverage.--Petebutt (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

::::"A non notable accident is still a non notable accident regardless of any mentions in a book or transitory news coverage." You're completely at odds with WP:NOTABILITY and its WP:GNG which basically defines notability of a topic if it has received significant coverage from secondary sources. By the way, an entire chapter in a book is not a "mention." --Oakshade (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - This topic has had very in-depth coverage years after the incident, easily passing WP:GNG and concerns for "NOTNEWS" are negated by the continued coverage. --Oakshade (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per Oakshade, among others. This whole discussion was launched by improvident reliance on WP:AIRCRASH which is an attempt at local consensus trying to trump community consensus (as evidenced in WP:GNG). This is not permitted. (see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). From now on, any deletion nomination based on WP:AIRCRASH ought to be treated as a substitute for "my argument has no weight except for those who agree with it" and be closed early as failing to state a proper reason for deletion: see WP:BEFORE. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• Please read WP:CONSENSUS, which defines "reaching consensus through editing" as a recognised form of consensus; WP:AIRCRASH is simply a listing of what the consensus that has been reached through editing is. Please see also WP:ONLYESSAY - and WP:AGF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:35, 24 June 2013 (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.