Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japan Airlines Flight 2

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. GB fan 14:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Airlines Flight 2[edit]

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

Complete lack of notability, or compliance with guidelines in WP:Aircrash Petebutt (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 7. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the fact that the accident was picked up by Peter Greenberg and that it was covered in the San Francisco Chronicle in 2011 ([1]) shows that there is some kind of lasting significance as required to pass WP:EVENT. It's also to be mentioned in the book The Fifth Discipline (but as this book not about aviation and I don't know the extent of its coverage of the accident, I wouldn't use it to make a point). Last but not least, there is this article at airliners.net. (is this considered a reliable source at all?) It indicates that the aircraft was repaired, even though being damaged by salty water, which could be some kind of a unique event, putting more weigh on the significance of the accident. More/better sources should be found, though.--FoxyOrange (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into San_Francisco_International_Airport#Accidents_and_incidents, which appears to be the best destination for this, and likely also List of accidents and incidents involving the Douglas DC-8 and List of Japan Airlines incidents and accidents, based on my reading of WP:PLANECRASH. I don't think it meets the notability guidelines for a standalone article. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this accident does have lasting significance - the "Asoh defence" came directly from it. Apart from that, a large commercial airliner was significantly damaged at the least. Mjroots (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sven Manguard. No need for a merge, there is already a paragraph at the target article. Crash with no lasting significance, no injuries or deaths. The only reason the article has been mentioned in the news recently is because of its similarity to the much more serious Aviana short-landing earlier this year. --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that it was a plane crash with lots of people on board makes it significant. It also happened under similar circumstances as the Asiana crash is interesting, too. Dead Goldfish (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. Not every plane crash (this was not even a crash, more of a water landing) with lots of people on board is significant. --MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable; by definition, meets the WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." It was not a "routine" accident or news event. It was not heroic like US Airways Flight 1549 where everyone also survived, but was an equally spectacular civil aviation accident involving a commercial airliner carrying over a hundred passengers and crew. It perhaps did not have "lasting" effects (which might also be true of Flight 1549), but any passenger airline accidental landing/crash not on an airport runway always receives extensive attention and becomes notable; this one is eminently suitable for standalone inclusion in the encyclopedia. WP:WikiProject_Aviation/Aircraft_accidents_and_incidents, which seems to be a guideline for articles about airports, aircraft and airlines (not aviation accidents by themselves), is not relevant here. This is not an article about an airport, airline or aircraft; it is an article about a notable aviation accident. DonFB (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG and WP:PERSISTENCE with flying colours. The fact that they rescued the aircraft from the water and actually returned it to service is pretty rare, and possibly almost unique in commercial passenger aviation. WP:AIRCRASH is a guideline, and cannot overrule GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:43, 13 December 2013 (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.