Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran Air Flight 742

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 no consensus. Although the article has not mentioned it, the sources indicating possible fallout from this incident does lend some credibility to the argument that coverage is beyond "mere news". The option of merging with the airport is not entirely unreasonable either. There is no general agreement here, but since alternatives to deletion have some support, I see no consensus for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Air Flight 742[edit]

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

Non notable incident, likely created as a response to LOT Polish Airlines Flight 016. However in this case only the nose wheels failed to deploy, which is much more common (in fact happened earlier this year at the same airport to mention just one). No lasting coverage and no indication of lasting notability. Ravendrop 19:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see no reason to assume a relation between this article and LOT Polish Airlines Flight 016. The article Iran Air Flight 742 was created ten hours before LOT Polish Airlines Flight 016 was nominated for deletion. The creator's name is Iranian, and I think the article was created in good faith. --Lambiam 19:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to suggest that the article wasn't created in good faith. I simply think that the author of this article saw the article on the LOT flight created (it was created first) remembered this incident, and assumed (in good faith) that it was notable and so created the article. Ravendrop 21:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:AIRCRASH. The linked article indicates that the plane suffered only minor damage. The information can be included at Mehrabad International Airport#Accidents and incidents. Pburka (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mehrabad International Airport#Accidents and incidents. Per WP:AIRCRASH ~~this incident is not notable enough to even be included in the list Boeing 727#Notable accidents and incidents.~~ No fatalities, not apparent hull-loss (though since the plane is so old they might not bother to repair), and safety recommendations, if any, are not coming for a while. LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here is why I though it was notable. 1) the airplane is old and due to sanctions they are services with old parts. 2) the capitan was put on leave of absence with no pay pending investigatio 3) I created a fan page for the capitan on facebook way before LOT Polish Airline Flight 016 article. To be fair, when I saw an entry for a similar incedent, I assumed this would qualify too. The video on you tube that I could not add has had close to one million views. The Mehrabad International Airport#Accidents and incidents may not be related as this airport was used as alternative. Not to mention that airport did not have foam ready! My impression is that Wikipedia wants regular users like me to contribute. abrapps (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining your reasons, and please be assured the work you did on the article, which is actually well done, is appreciated. It sucks to work on something and then it be deleted, but if that happens its nothing personal. It's just the subjective judgement of some others that the incident doesn't deserve a stand-alone article. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIRCRASH is the relevant essay. Generally, for an accident to have a chance of sustaining a stand-alone article, the airframe needs to be written off (there are some notable incidents where the aircframe was not written off though). For other major incidents, it generally results in coverage on the aircraft type, airline, and airport (if appliccable) articles. In this case, it would seem to be sufficient to give the accident such coverage. Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: wahington post source asserts notability but the other sources are not reliable. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fars is a reliable source. No knowledge of the third one though. Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a couple of news reports do not significant coverage make. Aircraft goes wrong, crew do what they should, aircraft gets down with no-one hurt. To use a phrase "nothing to see here, move along". GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete; falls short on notability. bobrayner (talk) 09:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet WP:AIRCRASH. A minor incident with no serious damage, no injuries and no indication of any changes to procedures, certification or regulations as a result, non-notable. - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This incident is almost identical to JetBlue Airways Flight 292. If anything, the possible impact of sanctions on these accidents would make this article more notable. I am not an Aviator, but according to the capitan of this flight, landing a plane with no gear (LOT Polish Airlines Flight 016), or damaged gear (JetBlue Airways Flight 292) carry the same risks and requires a similar skills and procedures. The Iran Air Flight 742 article is new and will be enhanced by other experts that visit Wikipedia on a regular basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saeed.Darya (talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good points. When I !voted to merge this article JetBlue Airways Flight 292 did come to mind, and although there was arguably "more" coverage of that incident at the time, that article probably shouldn't be in WP either. An article on the effect of sanctions on parts for commercial airliners in Iran is, I think, possibly the best way for information on this incident to be presented, maybe something similar to 2006–2007 Brazilian aviation crisis. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable just like JetBlue Airways Flight 292 is not really notable either (it is only kept because it was made a fuss of in the media). Landing aircraft without a nosewheel deployed is not that rare just normally jack it up fix it and life goes on. MilborneOne (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone up for a third AfD for JetBlue Airways Flight 292? The only thing notable about it is that it happened in the land of 24-hour cable news networks. Pburka (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought it up on that article's talk page. LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, in that it continues to create debate in Iran, given that the Captain on the flight was later sacked/stood down by the authorities in Iran, ostensibly because the incident itself created embarassment for the Iranian regime. It continues to get coverage in Iran. The incident has also bought back to the fore the issue of sanctions on Iran, and issues relating to its aging aircraft fleet, which due to (mainly US) sanctions is unable to be modernised and renewed. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 21:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are good Iranian sources that discuss this in more depth, bring them; I'll happily change from "delete" to "keep". bobrayner (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Handed a two month suspension -- more from Washington Post -- now being called a hero by Iranian authorities -- more -- the Daily Mail article mentions interviews he's given to Iranian media -- not speaking Farsi, I can't give those sources -- but given that it is still in news, shows that it is notable enough. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 19:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's a Farsi source for example. Another one here. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 20:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks to Russavia for the anglophone sources; I think they're a bit borderline as far as the GNG is concerned but there can be little doubt that there are more sources in Farsi so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Article would really benefit from a bilingual editor... bobrayner (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you Russavia. I would draw attention to the Washington Post story (I couldn't access it before), apparently filed 11 days after the event by their Tehran correspondent. Yes, "continuing" and "international" coverage. Still, I'm going to keep my opinion as "Merge" - I'd still be happier with not losing any of this information, but in an article of wider scope. It looks like this AfD is closest to "no consensus", which doesn't make me sad at all, especially if editors want to try to run with it for a while. JetBlue Airways Flight 292 was nominated for deletion twice [1] [2] and survived, but I think 5 years after the event there is interest now in changing that. No big deal if this is the same way. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2011 (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.