Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emirates Flight 407 (3rd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Flight 407 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

almost 2 years after the event, i see it as failing WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. and as per WP:EFFECT. no fatalities, even though classed as an accident, did not change the world of aviation. get a mention in the main Emirates (airline) article and that's all this event deserves LibStar (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Still in the news almost three years after the event ([1], [2], [3] from the last two months alone). Coverage is "significant, non-routine, and has persisted over a period of time" (per requirements of WP:EVENT). Has led Airbus to change their flight software and for airlines to introduce new procedures (ie, it has changed the world of aviation). Article has survived two previous AFDs (one keep, the other withdrawn on the way to what looked to be a solid keep) and while that's no reason not to re-nominate it if it really deserves it, if anything the claim to enduring notability has strengthened since then. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• given that the reason was incorrect take off weight being entered "simple miskeying" as one article states, the remedial measure, putting in correct weight is hardly charging the world of aviation. It has in effect not. It is WP:SYNTH to suggest this event is groundbreaking LibStar (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Both the Sydney Morning Herald] and The Australian disagree with that assertion, reporting "extensive damage" to the tail assembly, damaged lights and nav beacons at the end of the runway, that Emirates developed new takeoff procedures in response to the incident, that they are developing new avionics for takeoff monitoring system, and that Airbus updated their software and are developing a new program to calculate runway length needed. It passes GNG (many sources), EVENT (ongoing coverage) and AIRCRASH (significant damage to airframe and airport, regulations or procedures being changed as a result). --Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the "continued coverage" is simply WP:ROUTINE reports on the conclusion of the accident investigation. While I suppose this meets WP:AIRCRASH by changes in procedures, there is not sufficient coverage to meet the WP:GNG and merit an independent article. Coverage in the airline and type articles is sufficient for an accident of this (lack of) significance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and update - The article didn't reflect the investigation's final report issued in October 2011, which found a more systemic problem: failure to monitor runway acceleration against plan. Discussion is at section 8.4 of the report. While the resultant safety action has not yet concluded, it has been recommended to the FAA and EASA, and Airbus has demonstrated a prototype software solution. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this was a serious incident. That the article needs updating is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• serious does not automatically mean notable. my local bank was recently held up in an armed robbery. it's indeed serious but does that make it notable for WP? LibStar (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If the robbing of your bank led directly to the worldwide introduction of improved bank security systems, then yes, it would have been a notable robbery. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG- William 00:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a guideline? Care to elaborate how a topic that has received significant in-depth coverage from secondary sources, the very definition of WP:GNG, does not pass WP:GNG?--Oakshade (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article's References show the event has received significant coverage in reliable sources so we can presume it satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Dolphin (t) 04:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It received routine news coverage. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does a near-disaster resulting in a two year investigation remotely resemble any of the things contemplated by WP:ROUTINE? "Announcements, sports and tabloid journalism"? What about "Pre-scheduled events", "Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs", or "sports matches, film premieres, press conferences, etc". And finally, "run of the mill" or "light and amusing" events? That pretty much wraps up WP:ROUTINE. It's not the slightest bit applicable. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reporting that an accident investigation closed is routine. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Argument by repetition won't cut it. If the report was merely "that the investigation closed", you might have a point - but multiple independent reliable sources went into great detail about the report, the accident, the aftermath, the effect on aviation.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Yeti Hunter and others. Obviously meets WP:GNG with the in-depth coverage, but also the coverage has gone on long after the incident. As stated above, "Routine" coverage is defined by WP as "Announcements, sports and tabloid journalism" which the coverage of this topic is way beyond the scope of.--Oakshade (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage has "continued" only because the media reported on the conclusion of the Safety Board investigation. If coverage gets so much of a peep outside of specialist media from now on, I will be very surprised. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think any media would bother reporting any analytical report outcome long after the incident if it was non-notable. "Specialist media" is perfectly acceptable under WP:SOURCES as long as the source is independent of the topic and there is editorial control of its content.--Oakshade (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because Wikipedia IS news to me! --WR Reader (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this makes no argument for notability. WP:NOTNEWS is a clear guideline. LibStar (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.