Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alrosa Mirny Air Enterprise Flight 514

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. Favonian (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alrosa Mirny Air Enterprise Flight 514[edit]

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

notability, lack of Petebutt (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a notable accident for the following reasons -

The aircraft suffered a complete and total loss of all electrical systems. It was not the case that an electrical failure left some basic systems operational, they lost the lot.
The loss of electrical systems impacted on fuel management and the operation of hydraulic systems.
Although flaps were not available, a successful emergency landing was made.
The airfield that Flight 514 landed at was closed, and not marked on aviation maps.
Despite the high-speed landing and subsequent runway overrun, everybody survived.
This was the first (and therefore worst/most significant) accident suffered by the airline.
There have been calls for the crew to be honoured for their actions in the accident.

Mjroots (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Wikiprojects notified Mjroots (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. Substantial coverage in the news [1]. Subject is somewhat similar to Hudson River Miracle. Offliner (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable accident. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the nominator is a member of the aviation project, it appears that the wikiproject itself is split on articles like these. Whilst I'd normally argue for articles on developing/breaking news for deletion by WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT, the latter notes "(accidents) are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance", and as Mjroots noted, the event (and article) certainly stakes more than one claim of significance. Therefore, keep. Strange Passerby (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The loss of all electrical systems on Tu-154 is rather unique - I believe it never happened on Tu-154 before. The case received substantial news coverage and the pilots may even be awarded for their actions, which would be another recognition that it wasn't a mundane event. C1010 (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is as notable as Flight 1549. The fact no lives were lost makes it not notable. IlkkaP (talk) 10:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, highly unusual incident, extensive media coverage, comparable to US Airways 1549. C628 (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive coverage in reliable and verifiable sources establishes notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:for the reasons already stated by others.Eregli bob (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per mjroots--Wikireader41 (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, meeting WP:GNG with the sources. Lugnuts (talk) 06:45, 13 September 2010 (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.