Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Canada Flight 837

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. RL0919 (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Air Canada Flight 837[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not notable aviation incident. WP:NOTNEWS. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The accident is actually more notable than most accidents on Wikipedia. So much so that there are many examples. User:Speedbird6104, —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please refer to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to see why this is not a convincing argument. - Ahunt (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability for a stand alone aircraft accident/incident article per Wikipedia:AIRCRASH. Although not policy or a guideline we generally follow these criteria for these types of articles. - Samf4u (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minor incident, no injuries, no deaths, only damage to tire and one engine. Just not notable for an encyclopedia and a very good example of WP:RECENTISM. No one would start an article on any of the hundreds of individual blown tire incidents that happened to airliners in the 1940s or 1950s.- Ahunt (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

probably more like thousands!!--Petebutt (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hardly noteworthy or unusual and not notable enough for a stand-alone article or even a mention in Wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing to suggest actual WP:LASTING notability, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. There was brief concern this could’ve been much worse, but then it wasn’t, and now we know it’s not. Shelbystripes (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT you must be joking!!! An article for a blown tire!!! Wikipedia servers would be full of rubbish like this, with no room for deserving articles, if we don't display common sense and delete this!!--Petebutt (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We cull how many other aviation accidents that are a hell of a lot worse than a blown tire. Ultimograph5 (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see the point of deleting this. Great Mercian (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the arguments already made. The only notable thing about this incident seems to be that an F/A-18 was asked to examine the damage but this is not enough to warrant an article IMHO. Elshad (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I certainly do understand the arguments of the "Delete" voters—although this wasn't just a tire blowout; debris was then ingested into an engine which led to an engine shutdown. I think the article was created a little bit prematurely; we don't yet know what safety findings will result and if they will be noteworthy or have a lasting impact (although I'm inclined to think that they won't be particularly noteworthy). Having said that, I'd be happy to let the article stand and see if the investigation produces anything to make this article worthy of a Wikipedia page. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Engine damage is one of the things known to happen on a tire blowout. This is why emergency landings are done, an abundance of caution. So far the incident presents no compelling evidence that it will amount to anything more than breaking news. Without that, the article does little more than summarize what the aviation incident blogs and databases say. In the improbable event that this incident causes a design or procedural changes in aviation, a new article can be based on that. Right now, this incident barely rates a mention in the airline's or the aircraft's article. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am aware of that, • Gene93k, but to simply state that it was nothing more than a tire blowout is to minimise the severity of the incident. Having to shut down an engine is more problematic than simply losing a tire. And I wouldn't say that this was an incident where the crew was simply being cautious by performing an emergency landing. Flying on one engine poses greater risks—the situation may further deteriorate if the aircraft experiences other failures or if the crew makes mistakes. My guess, however, is that the investigation likely won't bring forward anything to make this incident worthy of a Wikipedia article. If you feel the article should be immediately deleted, I suggest you vote to "Delete". Dflaw4 (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In response to the comment above and after a closer examination of the article. Interestingly, much of the intricate details of the article don't come from any of the cited references. This article is a aviation incident database styled narrative of a by-the-book emergency response. Contained engine failures are generally not unusual enough to get lasting historical interest. From the sourced information, the pilots burned off fuel for several hours to reduce landing weight and then landed without further incident. Maybe someday, something will emerge from this incident to cause something more than a technical service bulletin. Without evidence of such, supported by reliable sources, this is just a breaking news story of an unusual event. As AfD is not a ballot, I did not see the need to pile on, but if a !vote is demanded, here goes. • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 15 February 2020 (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.