Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TAM Flight 8095

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. Shereth 14:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TAM Flight 8095[edit]

Passenger Injuries by turbulence are not really notable or uncommon (Contested PROD) MilborneOne (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Easily. Everything the nom said is spot on, and allow me to throw out WP:AIRCRASH as well.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 12:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:AIRCRASH. Mjroots (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~for now~~. It is an accident on a scheduled air carrier, so it meets WP:AIRCRASH. Was mislabled as an incident. The official accident investigation is still in progress, but has revealed parallel Air Data failures similar to what is thought to have happened on Air France flight 447. -- LeadSongDog come howl 18:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ref added to article about link to Air Data failure is a different flight on a different day using a different aicraft! MilborneOne (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Fails to meet WP:AIRCRASH as I read it. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At another editor's request, I have reviewed the article to see if changes made satisfy WP:AIRCRASH. I find this is not the case, and I reaffirm my recommendation that this article be deleted. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change my !vote to Keep. Expanded article demonstrates that it now meets WP:AIRCRASH. Mjroots (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment are you sure? I have just de-expanded the article! MilborneOne (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both the current WP:AIRCRASH and gets -2 points on my draft replacement (E1, E2). Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was just an everyday incident. Just received some attention because it happened close to when Air France Flight 447 happened, and the airplane was the same kind, but it's actually WP:ROTM. Also per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:109PAPERS. It is more suitable to Wikinews. Algébrico (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Passing news. Ex nihil (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query Would someone voting delete please explain how that an accident on a scheduled commercial flight does not meet WP:AIRCRASH? To me it seems cut and dried.LeadSongDog come howl 16:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After one month and the newspapers have already forgotten about the subject. The most recent news about another TAM Flight 8095 is about Swine flu suspect cases: [1]. I believe that when a flight accident is notable enough, the flight companies usually change its number. For instance, AF 447 have changed its number to "AF 445" (for flights after the accident) [2]. Algébrico (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while a nice reminder to adhere to the announcements during your flight's taxiing, it isn't notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2009 (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.