Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flight 952
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. Sr13 04:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent fake incident; no mention of accident in Aviation Safety Network or Airdisaster.com databases or any returns for Google searches. This diff claims 16 fatalities, but as in the article no source(s) are provided. Lipsticked Pig 06:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - seems like a hoax to me too. Might ought to be snowballed. - BillCJ 07:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. I traced the aircraft to Mexicana both at the time of the accident and to this day, and therefore also tried searching for Mexicana Flight 952 on Google; similar lack of results. What I did find was this, a tracking page for the flight in question, which landed yesterday. Had it really been a fatal accident, the flight number would have been retired. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC) (the preceding comment was mistakenly signed late, see the edit history for the original time of posting)[reply]
- Delete - complete hoax. A query for "N764MX" at airframes.org shows that the aircraft is still registered and was transferred in 2005, then reregistered as N403JS. airliners.net shows a number of photos without any mention of damage. Finally, a query of the National Transportation Safety Board's aviation accident database doesn't show anything for N764MX. So, it's a hoax. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This may not be a hoax but simply a non-notable incident that took place in another country. This aircraft landed in Guadalajara, which is in Mexico, a country with its own rules, regulations, and investigative board. Although the aircraft was US-registered, it was not US-based and the incident didn't occur in the US, so why would they bother reporting it to the NTSB? Despite this, it's certainly not a notable incident; nobody died or was injured, and the aircraft went back into service. --Charlene 12:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentWhile I agree with your overall line of reasoniong, I would like to pont out that just becuase this is the English Wikipedia, we are not confined to events that take place in the English-speaking world, and should in fact avoid Anglo-centric bias. --YbborTalk 13:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm usually the first to say that, but a mechanical problem that doesn't end in loss of life or serious injuries isn't notable per Wikipedia precedent. There are at least a hundred minor incidents of the same severity every month in the US alone, and possibly a thousand or more a month worldwide. This one is no more notable than any of those. --Charlene 15:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Oh yes, I agree with you completely, the article should be deleted. I'm just saying the fact that it happened outside the English-speaking world isn't a valid reason to do so. --YbborTalk 16:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -The fact that it happened outside the "English-speaking world" isn't a valid reason to assume it's being nominated for that reason. That is just as biased as the view you are tying to counter! It might make it harder to find information, but as this is a US-registered plane, that should not have been a factor in this case. And I would point out to Charlene that this diff - linked by Lipsticked Pig in his nomination above - claimed that 16 people had died (added by the same user at around the same time). It is "facts" like this that led me and others to conclude that this is indeed some kind of hoax, not just a minor, unreported incident. - BillCJ 16:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - yes, if that was what I said I would agree with you. I did not, however, say that that was why it was being nominated. I was responding to Charlene 's comment that "This may not be a hoax but simply a non-notable incident that took place in another country" (emphasis his). This to me implied an anglo-centric bias; that Wikipedia should only cover accidents that take place in the English-speaking world. --YbborTalk 18:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - OK, I understand what you're talking about now. You have mis-understood her reason for the emphasis. She said right after that: "This aircraft landed in Guadalajara, which is in Mexico, a country with its own rules, regulations, and investigative board. Although the aircraft was US-registered, it was not US-based and the incident didn't occur in the US, so why would they bother reporting it to the NTSB?" That was what "in another country" referred to - that the NTSB might not have investigated it because it was "in another country", and therefore we might not find information. She was in no way implying that it was not notable because it happened in another country, nor are any of the rest of us. I can see how you might have mis-comprehended. - BillCJ 19:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - ah, now it make more sense. Appologies to all for the misunderstanding. --YbborTalk 02:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - OK, I understand what you're talking about now. You have mis-understood her reason for the emphasis. She said right after that: "This aircraft landed in Guadalajara, which is in Mexico, a country with its own rules, regulations, and investigative board. Although the aircraft was US-registered, it was not US-based and the incident didn't occur in the US, so why would they bother reporting it to the NTSB?" That was what "in another country" referred to - that the NTSB might not have investigated it because it was "in another country", and therefore we might not find information. She was in no way implying that it was not notable because it happened in another country, nor are any of the rest of us. I can see how you might have mis-comprehended. - BillCJ 19:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - yes, if that was what I said I would agree with you. I did not, however, say that that was why it was being nominated. I was responding to Charlene 's comment that "This may not be a hoax but simply a non-notable incident that took place in another country" (emphasis his). This to me implied an anglo-centric bias; that Wikipedia should only cover accidents that take place in the English-speaking world. --YbborTalk 18:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -The fact that it happened outside the "English-speaking world" isn't a valid reason to assume it's being nominated for that reason. That is just as biased as the view you are tying to counter! It might make it harder to find information, but as this is a US-registered plane, that should not have been a factor in this case. And I would point out to Charlene that this diff - linked by Lipsticked Pig in his nomination above - claimed that 16 people had died (added by the same user at around the same time). It is "facts" like this that led me and others to conclude that this is indeed some kind of hoax, not just a minor, unreported incident. - BillCJ 16:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Oh yes, I agree with you completely, the article should be deleted. I'm just saying the fact that it happened outside the English-speaking world isn't a valid reason to do so. --YbborTalk 16:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm usually the first to say that, but a mechanical problem that doesn't end in loss of life or serious injuries isn't notable per Wikipedia precedent. There are at least a hundred minor incidents of the same severity every month in the US alone, and possibly a thousand or more a month worldwide. This one is no more notable than any of those. --Charlene 15:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think, it being a US-registered plane, the NTSB does tend to take an interest if it is involved in a serious accident... I think international laws give countries the right to insist in a foreign investigation under certain circumstances that give them a genuine legitimate interest, and I'm pretty sure the aircraft being registered or built in a specific country is on the list of things giving that country the right to know and investigate. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think the NTSB investigates incidents and accidents on commercial aircraft that fly from the United States into another country, such as this incident on a Continental Airlines flight flying from Houston to Buenos Aires, which encountered turbulence in Mexico. That doesn't mean the NTSB would have records on every such incident, but I used the database query as a check to see if the Flight 952 incident was likely to have actually happened. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentWhile I agree with your overall line of reasoniong, I would like to pont out that just becuase this is the English Wikipedia, we are not confined to events that take place in the English-speaking world, and should in fact avoid Anglo-centric bias. --YbborTalk 13:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per Blood Red Sandman's research. --YbborTalk 13:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Blood Red Sandman. Ganfon 16:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete IT NEVER HAPPENED, as Lipstick notes. The first clue might be that there was no airline mentioned, just "Flight 952". If it had really happened, this would be just another badly written article... it isn't every day that airplanes just split in two because of "pessure". Mandsford 21:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No mention of an airline. 70.55.86.129 04:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Mandsford and 70.55.86.129, please be aware that although no airline was mentioned, it was originaly linked to Mexicana's Wiki article, and as per abaove I traced the airframe to Mexicana, so no problems with that aspect - just another bad title. I'll agree with you it never split in half though - instead of being written off, it's still regularly flying. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 06:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Can you point to even one Internet site, outside of Wikipedia, where this incident is mentioned? An accident doesn't have to be a fatality to be mentioned in databases like airdisaster.com; was it in the news somewhere? Can you find anything reliable with a google search? Mandsford 16:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I'm not saying it's not a hoax altogether, I'm saying that the lack of airline counts for nothing and is not what makes it a hoax, since I succesfuly traced it to the same airline who's article it was originaly linked to. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:49, 3 July 2007 (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.