Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryanair Flight 296

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 Keep. The Placebo Effect 21:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ryanair Flight 296

Ryanair Flight 296 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A non-notable airline incident. Inflight engine fires are not that uncommon, and neither are stuff ups with emergencies. Russavia 16:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. There's no specific guideline but my own rule of thumb starts roughly at multiple fatalities on a scheduled commercial flight. This was just an incident with fatalities or even injuries. --Dhartung | Talk 18:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- significant incident in Ryanair's history- and exposed their poor safety training. Astrotrain 19:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Criticism of Ryanair#Accidents and incidents. Merge not necessary as incident is already covered there in sufficient detail. Espresso Addict 21:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Astrotrain. Important event that received lots of media attention due to exposing problems with Ryanair's safety training. There's too much topic specific content to merge to Criticism of Ryanair#Accidents and incidents. --Oakshade 23:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect. Fails to meet the wikiprojects definition of a notable incident. This seems to be part of a series of articles critical of Ryanair. So maybe it is a POV fork or an attack page designed to look like an encyclopedic article. Vegaswikian 03:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- Notable incident with coverage, and consequences from the follow up investigation. Could do with more sources Thunderwing 13:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• keep per astrotrain and oakshade Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• keep The article seems factual informative and has references. Although perhaps the airline might like it suppressed it seems reasonable to keep it, I see there are 15 other articles in this category. --Gibnews 17:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Gibnews, but needs much more source material. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2007 (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.