Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air France Flight 689

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. Courcelles (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Air France Flight 689[edit]

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

A non-notable technical failure which is not even notable for a mention on the airline or aircraft articles never mind a stand-alone article. Unspecified technical failure causes aircraft to divert, one of many of such that occur daily so although it claims passengers were inconvenienced a two-hour delay is not significant. MilborneOne (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, I'm not seeing anything significant here, let alone "notable" (no press reports). Definitely doesn't seem a worthy enough event for a full Wikipedia article, even a stub. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
????????????Delete Is the author on drugs??--Petebutt (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Petebutt, please assume good faith on behalf of the article's creator. Comments like this one can be seen as an WP:ADHOMINEM attack. Make comments on the content, not the editor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a comment, but a legitimate (albeit, facetious) question.--Petebutt (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Petebutt, this question is frequently used in society (both online and offline) in a derogatory manner. You need to remember that inflections or bodily gestures cannot be seen on the Internet and as such, it would be easy for someone to see this comment as a personal attack against the editor. I also need to add that you aren't actually making any statements about the content itself. You're ultimately asking if someone created an article because they were blitzed out of their mind on drugs, or at least this is how it comes across. If you want, look at it this way: the person who created the article is a new user with less than 100 edits. This means that they are very new to Wikipedia and likely are not as familiar with policy as others might be. They make an article for something that doesn't really pass notability guidelines and at the AfD someone makes a remark that can come across as very, very nasty rather than just point out why the article fails notability guidelines. Upset, they stop editing Wikipedia and do not return. The thing is, this has happened on Wikipedia before and we've had people say that they've left and never come back because someone made a flippant comment that unfortunately can come across as rather mean spirited and derogatory to other editors. Especially a new editor who may not even know what they did wrong in the first place. I also need to point out that part of the reason this editor wrote about this incident was because they were on the plane with their family, per their comments on the talk page. So not only is the editor new (and probably a younger person), but they might also have been a little shook up by everything - and someone asking if they are "on drugs" could come across pretty badly. We want to retain editors and teach them how to do things properly, not chase them off. Please put a little more thought into how you write things out. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, if your intent was to ask them why they wanted to write the article and why they think that it passes notability guidelines, your question does not really come across as all that inviting or friendly. Just because you didn't mean for it to come across as a personal attack does not mean that the other person (or other people) won't see it as such. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I mean, if we had an article about every incident in the world where an aircraft, ship, train or coach was held up for two hours, Wikipedia would become rather large and not very interesting: Noyster (talk), 08:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment True, true, but that's not the only thing that happened. The airplane actually had to turn around and return to its point of origin, at which point it was already several hours into the flight. I'm sure that doesn't happen very often. Mizzou1993 (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Such incidents occur very often, almost every day. Definitely not worthy of having its own article. Should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.182.184.3 (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incident does not rise to the importance of a notable one. Edison (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Routine tech problem. Mjroots (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Aircraft delays are a very routine thing, and it shows as I can't find sources beyond trivial mentions and one local-looking source. Without good sources, this article does not appear to be notable enough to exist, even if IMO it doesn't fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE; that policy is more about context-free data and this article is not just context-free data.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Air France accidents and incidents with leaving a redirect. (P.S. already merged by me). 46.201.122.69 (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... and already removed from there by another editor as "definitely not notable": Noyster (talk), 09:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Why is this even an article ?, Aircraft's get delayed all the time and I imagine quite a few suffer technical problems all the time, Not sure what makes this one so special!. –Davey2010^Talk 23:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable at the very least. This shouldn't have existed in the first places, hundreds of flights are delayed each year and I see no reason to make this one an article. ~Liance^{talk/contribs} 23:17, 28 September 2015 (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.