Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1993 Norwich Airport G-OBWD incident

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. Shimeru 03:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1993 Norwich Airport G-OBWD incident

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

Not in the slightest bit notable. There were no injuries and the aircraft was not damaged at all. YSSYguy (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not at all notable, fails WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS. - Ahunt (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a non-notable news event. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I PRODded this article and the PROD tag was removed a few hours before the seven-day time period expired, by a User who was indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry less than an hour later. A few days ago I opened a discussion on the WP:Aviation Talk page on the basis of my belief that this article did not need to go through AfD due to WP:SNOW. A couple of Users suggested the incident might be notable for various reasons. One User suggested that the aircraft was carrying the Norwich City football team after its win over Bayern Munich in the UEFA Cup, however that match took place three weeks after this incident. The same User characterised this as an accident, but the AAIB categorised it as an incident; as noted above there were no injuries and there was no damage to the aircraft at all. Another User suggested that the incident might have led to the concrete segments of the airport runway being re-grooved; if this is the case then I suggest that this warrants no more than a one-sentence mention in the airport article. It certainly does not deserve mentioning in the aircraft article. YSSYguy (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The user who mentioned Norwich City FC was me. The actual phrase I used was If I recall correcly. It looks like my recollection wasn't 100%, although the incident did occur at around the time NCFC beat Bayern Munich. My !vote is posted below. Mjroots (talk)
Delete: per nom. Dewritech (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wish that the aviation project people would write an article called runway overrun or runway excursion, the second of which currently redirects to runway. The vast majority of those would fall under the category of "breaking news" with no historical notability. We don't have quite as many of this type of article creation as we used to, but the overruns don't really have a place where they can go. Mandsford 13:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Codf1977 (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merged pre Delete I have merged it into the Norwich International Airport article and so the page can be deleted Chaosdruid (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work on that one. Generally, most of this stuff can be merged somewhere, and the airport article is good. Concerning an article about runway excursions, I could go on and on, perhaps too far... Mandsford 16:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone else has deleted the info from the airport article as not notable, an edit I agree with and one I had already done just prior to PRODding the article in the first place. As I said above, IMO at most this deserves a single sentence in the airport article if the incident led to the grooving of the concrete part of the runway. The runway was 6,043 feet long, of which the last 837 feet was concrete. According to the AAIB report the aircraft was fast on approach and touched down one-third along the runway, the crew were less-than-assertive in slowing the aircraft down, and hydroplaning was not a factor. The AAIB also noted the lower friction of the concrete segement of the runway compared to the ashphalt section; the investigators also calculated that the aircraft was travelling at more than 60 knots when the aircraft entered the concrete segment. This is why I believe that the only basis for notability is if the incident led directly to the concrete being grooved, in which case something along the lines of "The runway surface was grooved in [year] after a BAC 1-11 overran the runway on 29 September 1993" would be sufficient IMO. YSSYguy (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
commentI had reincluded it very late in the day before continuing investigation into the other incidents involving overruns from the 09 end of 27. These were under differing circumstances and there is not much detail avilable to hand from internet searches on 27 work at the 09 end. The only info readily available was to tarmacing of the 09 end in 2005. As long as it is in the history it can easily be reinstatd if anyone can find more evidence that any or all of these led to resurfacing or regrooving. After 4 hours on it this morning I, for one, cannot find any further info on that.Chaosdruid (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable incident. Mjroots (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2010 (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.