Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirAsia Flight 104

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 This is based on the lack of cited secondary sources to establish notability. I'm not persuaded that this should form a precedent for future aviation incidents and presence of secondary sources should be a sufficient test for them. Spartaz Humbug! 20:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AirAsia Flight 104

AirAsia Flight 104 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A non-notable aviation incident, it's not an uncommon occurrence for an aircraft to skid off a runway. No deaths occurred. No long lasting repercussions for the aviation industry. Any news hits don't discuss the incident in such a way to give it long-lasting notability within WP guidelines. Russavia (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment The first part of the reasoning is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS reasoning. The second part, QF1 is a notable accident as it has been covered in depth by news media years after the incident and did have ramifications for the airline, such as the insistance on calling the accident an 'incident', spending millions of dollars repairing an aircraft which should have all rights been written off but not done so in order to protect their "no airframe loss" record in the jet era, having the aircraft sent to China to have repairs done, CASA blaming Qantas for the accident, etc, etc. All in all, QF1 is a very notable accident due to long-term media and literatury coverage. AirAsia Flight 104, however, sources which give it notability in context of the WP:AVIATION accident task force guidelines, and WP policies, can't be found. --Russavia (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment My intention was not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it was that there was a precedence based on the argument of "airplane over shooting and no injuries" was a kind of a standard for the nom. My intention was more on the idea of common outcomes from AfD where if there is a common outcome (a Persuasive precedent)...then why not? As for one article being more notable then another, my opinion was that this was still an aircraft accident and see no issue with keeping it, not that it was any more notable then any other article. --Pmedema (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - It actually is very uncommon for commercial aircrafts to skid off the runway. That's why the incidents are the subject of multiple secondary sources like this one. --Oakshade (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Runway over-runs may not be a regular occurence, but they are significantly more common than other, more serious, incidents. The article has no supporting material. There were no fatalities and only two injuries out of 116 people on board, and negligible effects to the airport's operation (4 delayed departures and 5 diverted arrivals is hardly huge). Wexcan (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to AirAsia, since it's suggested in the article that the timing of this, weeks before an IPO, affected the value of the stock. With thousands of takeoffs and landings worldwide, air accidents happen. There are aborted takeoffs, there are emergency landings, there are cases where the landing gear failed, there are blown tires, there are incidents of sudden turbulence where people were injured. Since each flight has a designation (Air____, Flight____), and there are reports made, even a minor accident involving an airplane will be more likely to end up in a database than, say, a bus plunging off of a road in South America, or a three car accident on a multi-lane highway. Not every accident is notable. Mandsford (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per nom. Also, articles must have reliable sources to attest to their notability for the articles to even remain on WP, and this one has absolutely no sources. Concur that it could be mentioned on Air Asia if reliables sources are found that tie it to the IPO somehow. - BillCJ (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per nom and comments by BillCJ. MilborneOne (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I fail to see any long term notability for the incident Corpx (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikinews? Just a suggestion « D. Trebbien (talk) 20:24 2008 February 3 (UTC)
  • Cant due to license incompatibility Corpx (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2008 (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.