Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BA CityFlyer Flight 8456

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. After weighing the arguments presented by each side, I've found consensus to be that this crash was minor and fails NOTNEWS. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BA CityFlyer Flight 8456[edit]

BA CityFlyer Flight 8456 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

News incident with no lasting encyclopedic notability, fails WP:AIRCRASH. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 06:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am a Brit, but it still doesn't pass the policy and the guideline stated. I also find your assumption of bad faith rather concerning. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do feel free to keep those concerns to yourself. Shnitzled (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I, too, am concerned, Shnitzled, and your tone isn't really helpful, either. We try very hard to work against regionalism...I personally have AfD'd a number of similar incidents that have happened in the U.S....far more so than have happened in other nations, in fact. Focus on the issue...it does or it does not meet the minimum criteria. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, adequately covered in both London City Airport and BA CityFlyer articles. Mjroots (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable as per proposer. MilborneOne (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, is notable, it seems as though as if anything that happens in Britain the Americans turn their backs too. It is notable that's why I think we should keep it, as people do like to know this information. Joey Boeing 777 (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a US airliner did the same thing and got an article I would nominate it here. There is nothing unusual, unlike in the 2007 Dash 8 landing gear incidents or JetBlue Airways Flight 292, nor is there something like a fatality or a suggestion of poor legislation or design error playing a role. While I sympathise with the argument that we can keep such articles and see if laws are changed or aircraft redisigned, in reality too many airliners have such crashes for this to be feasable, with recreation if they become notable being the way to go. See also WP:CRYSTAL Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to say but I seriously believe that if this had happened in the U.S.A. you would keep it, so I'm sorry but I seriously believe there is a foul play here. Prove me wrong by keeping it. Joey Boeing 777 (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joey, you are absolutely wrong. Here are 3 that happened in the US that I either nominated or !voted delete in: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alaska Airlines Flight 528, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines Flight 268, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines Flight 31. You are missing the point entirely...an incident doesn't become notable simply because it happens in the UK rather than in the US. It is non-notable because a nose gear collapse just isn't notable...it's a minor incident that simply doesn't rise to encyclopedic level. No one was killed, and the plane is easily repairable. Life goes on. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you expect Joey? They have so many articles here on sports significant only to the USA, but when it comes to international sports, they get deleted for being "irrelevant". Typical. Shnitzled (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do you a deal. I'll find a similar incident from the US and write an article - hopefully this weekend, but if not then not for a week as I will be away. I'll then take it to AfD and we'll see what happens. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about an article on the helicopter crash involving Sun Myung Moon which happened late last year? You could find lots of press coverage. Redddogg (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look to be prefectly fair, the JetBlue Airways Flight 292 incident was practically the same when you look at it. It had nose gear problems, made a crash-landing, stopped on runway, emergency response, passengers & crew onboard and they all survived, so tell me where the difference is to BA CityFlyer Flight 8456. All I want here right now is to show the world things which are happening here in Britain too, not just America, I ain't got problems with Americans but the thing that annoys me is that we can't have any incident like JetBlue 292 on wiki. Joey Boeing 777 (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JetBlue can only be considered notable due to the insane press coverage. The thing was broadcast live etc. Otherwise, I would advise that article's deletion, and I might add that it is only barely notable in my book. As for the helicopter crash, it meets WP:AVIATION as it involves a very notable person and I would not even nominate such an article here (although someone else might). I will go out and look for a landing gear incident from America, create it and nominate it at some point. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it was, but this incident made top news all over U.K. (so really it too got insane press coverage), some parts of Europe and North America. Therefor it's just fits into notable in my books too. So to be honest I agree with Joey on this one. Zaps93 (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)— Zaps93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
To come back to my offer, will you agree that this American incident is comparable in notability (although somewhat different in circumstances)? If so, I will sort out an article and I very much doubt it would sirvive an AfD. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, An incident involving the nosewheel of same aircraft type, at the same airport happened last week. The article ia an important historically should there be (God forbid) a design or engineering issue. I agree with the general sentiments about American-Zionist control. Mohammed Azeem, London, England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.245.29 (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say, I am fascinated by the idea that the nomination of this article for deletion could be part of some 'American-Zionist' conspiracy... as arguments for keeping an article go, that's got to be one of the strangest ones I've read in a long time. :) Robofish (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep. Many people fail to understand that wiki is turning to be an initial ref source for serious acadmic studies (they don't cite wiki, but they use it to research for primary sources). This incident may well be of interest for studies in aviation, transportation and even critcal social theories of media and globalization. Therefore it should stay. Oh, and I am a Zionist. There goes the American-zionist conspiracy theory down the drain...--Omrim (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Interestingness is a good essay which talks about why being of interest is not a good measure of how in need we are of an article on something, and as for its academic use, there's WP:USEFUL. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see your point. I didn't say it is interesting. I did say it is useful, and as per WP:USEFUL, I explained why it is useful. It is important to note such an incident, for ex, for learning patterns of nose gear failures. It is also, as some implied, important incident in distinguishing the responses of different media outlets to differne aviation incidents, and Those are just two examples. It is not just "usefull". It is important piece of information in the documentation of commercial aviation history. Therefore KEEP. --Omrim (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To quote you: "well be of interest for studies in..." (emphasis added). However, I also brought in WP:USEFUL as I suspected that was what you meant. I would not say that you explained why before, merely noting who it would be if use instead of why, but in your last response you did. I disagree, but that's beside the point: you now have a valid argument. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Things happen every day. If you feel, or make that if notable secondary sources feel that the nosewheel of this model airplane is an issue then write an article on that. Redddogg (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree with Joey Boeing 777 due to the fact that incidents like this are listed on wiki, but for some reason are all American. This incident made no.1 headline in British BBC News and other news, even made American news. If it was the no.1 story therefor it should be listed down as its part of BA CityFlyer's history and LCY history to be precise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaps93 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC) — Zaps93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment can I just remind contributors that this page is to discuss the notability of this incident and WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid point at AfD. Also note like the S-92 accident with Sun Myung Moon article which is mentioned in both his and the S-92 articles, nobody is removing it from the CityFlyer or London City article just that it is not notable in its own right to have an article. If you have concerns about other articles then please raise the appropriate AfDs. Also note we are not all Americans on Wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to say, i'm not saying all contributers are American because I know thats not true, but to be perfectly honest the people trying their damnest to get rid of this article are American (excluding you). So honestly whats the harm in a small article covering a 'major' incident at LCY. It involved wild news coverage, emergency response and hospitalization. Zaps93 (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)— Zaps93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I'm not American, as noted above. I'm a Brit - I come from the country it crashed in. I've never been to the Americas. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before this turns into a racial discussion lets all get back to the topic. It was a major thing to happen to the U.K. Nothing like this happened often here. After reading WP:AIRCRASH I have to say I think it just squeezes into notability. Zaps93 (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2009
  • Delete - there does not appear to be anything particularly notable about this accident. For contrast, see for instance British Airways Flight 38 - that article was nominated for deletion, but kept as it was the first major accident involving a 777. There doesn't seem to be anything like that we can say about this one; it was simply a flight that suffered landing gear failure, but landed without serious injury. I don't see any lasting newsworthiness here. (And, for the record, I am British.) Robofish (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was covered by multiple, reliable independent sources, so it passes Wikipedia:Notability. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing Wikipedia:Verifiability with Wikipedia:Notability. Afroghost (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article, says Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Wroooong. Does the word presume tell you anything? If not, then Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline will tell you: "Presumed means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not." Afroghost (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong? Today is the first time I have read Wikipedia:Verifiability in a few months. Therefore it is extremely unlikely that I have confused Wikipedia:Notability with Wikipedia:Verifiability. I have said that it passes Wikipedia:Notability because is does meet the notability criteria. I already know that policies have precedence over guidelines, which is why I stated why I believe the subject passes Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#NEWS. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable as per proposer. The nationality of the aircraft is not an issue. Rcawsey (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I find the notability questionable. No-one died, and only one person was slightly injured. (PS - I'm from the United Kingdom.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People dying does not make a crash notable. It is reliable, independent sources which are required, and what the article has. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Such incidents of commercial jet aircraft are not common (as they shouldn't be) and by British law will generate volumes of government investigation documentation.--Oakshade (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The flight itself is not notable. If, as was mentioned in the discussion above, there is a pattern involving BA CityFlyer craft, the discussion is better handled at the BA CityFlyer article and not at flight-specific articles, since the problems would be airline-wide and not limited to a specific flight or plane. —C.Fred (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above, moreover it is good illustration of London City's steep glideslope. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think London City's steep glideslope is an important topic (and it might be) please write an article about that. Redddogg (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing notable about this hard landing, even if it did occur in a place where English is spoken. American, British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, etc. air incidents are no more notable than those anywhere else in the world. Mandsford (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very minor incident. If anyone can find other very minor incidents they should nominate them for deletion and discussion. Spikydan1 (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "crashed slightly" "one minor injury" - this is not of the "significant lasting and historical interest and impact" required by WP:NOTNEWS. JohnCD (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:News articles is an essay, unlike Wikipedia:Notability, which is a guideline. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS is a policy, unlike Wikipedia:Notability, which is a guideline. Afroghost (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of the coverage is announcements, sports or tabloid journalism, and it's not hard to find multiple sources which do not count as breaking news in this list. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You selectively quoted from the policy. Your quote is one example of several of what not to include in Wikipedia. The policy also states "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events", and this requirement is not satisfied by this article as this is truly a minor, minor incident. Afroghost (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And how is this a minor incident? It is major enough to be covered by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a crash, not notable in the slightest. Can think of half a dozen similar incidents over recent years, none of which are included on Wikipedia! The only difference with this incident is that it happened recently, Wikipedia is not a news service. SempreVolando (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Press coverage only because of major fatal crash in immediate past. Accidents that don't happen aren't encyclopedic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Has multiple sources so it passes Wikipedia:Notability, which also states that notability is not temporary. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Has many sources therefor it passes Wikipedia:Notability. Also it may become useful information within the near future. Thanks Awkwardwalker (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS and what others have already said. Afroghost (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft. My reasoning is: I share the concerns about NOT#NEWS, but I think that after this has stopped being news, it'll still be a marginally notable incident. However, I don't feel there's enough actual content to justify a separate article, and I don't feel it could be expanded to full article status because there isn't enough to say.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - merge not possible - that list has a dedicated guideline, which specifies that all entries must have existing wiki articles. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - so merge it to an alternative list. If no suitable place exists on Wikipedia, then I'll change my !vote to a reluctant keep until a suitable merge location appears or the guidelines for that list change.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - the ideal place to merge it to would be the airline's article, and possibly also the article on the airport. If design is an issue, the aircraft type as well. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable, minor accident. If it's any consolation, I tried to write an article about the time I dinged my car fender, but the American Zionist conspiracy deleted that one too. SkipSmith (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete extremely minor incident. Regardless of the number of newspaper articles about this topic, WP is not a newspaper, nor a news aggregator. -Atmoz (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage by sources is how notability is gained. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is correct. If it is covered in February 2009 sources, it is news. If we think that it's notable enough that it will still be covered by sources in February 2010, or in the chapter of a book in 2019, than we say that it is notable enough for an article of its own. Subjective, sure, but that's how the consensus is determined. I'm not asking anybody to answer this question, but I think we have to ask "would this be notable ten years from now?" Mandsford (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For those defending this article, perhaps you could read WP:AIRCRASH and then come back and explain why this crash is notable by that standard? SkipSmith (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm inclined to disregard WP:AIRCRASH in this case. It's an essay, so I feel it has to yield to guidelines and policies.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - for what it's worth, WP:AIRCRASH was built from a long term study of AfDs on aircraft incidents, which tried to incorporate all the typical arguments for and against articles of various degrees of severity. Thus, the attempt was to incorporate consensus as developed by the community in multiple AfDs. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - I do understand that, but I feel we're dealing with Wikipedia: Five pillars fundamentals here. This matter received very significant coverage in multiple, reputable, independent sources, and those sources are cited. Therefore it's inappropriate to remove the content from Wikipedia. I feel that the only question that remains is where the information should be held--as a separate article or as part of a more comprehensive one? I realise WP:AIRCRASH is being cited in good faith but I don't feel it can be allowed to disrupt the process of building an encyclopaedia. -- I also feel there's some inadvertent blindness in our American friends to exactly how important this incident is to the British perspective, though I don't agree with the very strongly-put remarks at the beginning of this AfD.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If there really is a problem with the landing gear then maybe this artcle should be condenced and used to create a section on BAe 146. Or if other landing gear incidents can't be found then it shoud just be a sentence or two on BA CityFlyer and BAe 146. Spikydan1 (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'comment I've seen lots of references to WP:AIRCRASH here, and so I thought I'd explicitly list how I think it rates against those criteria
    General criteria:
    1. I'm no expert but based on comments here seem to be suggesting that landing gear failure of this type is not unusual, but the amount of media coverage of it is
    2. Neither the article nor anybody here appears to be claiming that anyone onboard was notable, so I think it's fair to say nobody on board was.
    3. It's probably too early for air crew to be dismissed/reprimanded over this, but I've not seen any speculation that they will be. At this point it's probably fair to say that they probably wont be. It is definitely too early for maintenance staff to be in the firing line, and this will still be the case when this afd runs out of time. For now I'd say treat it as if nobody is being fired/reprimanded but revisit the issue if this changes in the future.
    Air carrier criteria:
    1. The incident did involve a scheduled carrier, but it did not result in serious injury or loss of life. This would seem then to be one mark for inclusion and one mark against.
    2. Too early to say whether this will change anything, so assume it doesn't unless and until it actually does, at which point this can be reconsidered.
    3. This was not a hijacking and did not involve any sort of military or terrorist action
    4. This does not appear to be either the first or worst accident for the airline or airliner.
    This was not a military aircraft, so the criteria for these do not apply
    General/Private aviation criteria:
    1. There doesn't appear to be any unusual circumstances involved
    2. There does not appear to have been anybody notable on board
    3. It is too early to say whether changes to the industry will result
    4. News coverage was extensive at the time, but the only thing I've seen since is a small regional news item about the airport reopening. Compare this to the continuing coverage of Continental Connection Flight 3407. Thryduulf (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on my comments above I'm !voting merge into airline, airport and (maybe) airliner articles, keep for now but re-examine in 1-2 months so questions about continued coverage and lasting impact (if any) can be properly answered. Thryduulf (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I'd forgotten this already before you reminded me of it again... not a single teeny-weeny-iddy-biddy ounce of a death, word of dramatic landing or any pilots being given the keys to London. I would however reverse that entirely had the plane splash-landed in the Thames. Oh wait, that wouldn't be very original at all – make that Loch Ness instead. Of course that's the danger with a verdict of redirecting to re-examine later – the re-examining bit tends to not happen. ;) --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 03:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is very notable...the airline was on CNN, the World Wide Web and aren't all airline accidents or incidents notable? Whenaxis (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Keep - "Strong delete" is a bit harsh, the accident has been on every single reputable news source, it caused a major international airport to be closed for a day, and, it highlights a dangerous design fault with the aircraft concerned. I would like to also add that if this article is nominated for deletion, I think it would be fair to also nominate JetBlue Airways Flight 292 for deletion as well, as to quote User: Candlewicke, not a single teeny-weeny-iddy-biddy ounce of a death occured on that flight either. U(ser)N(ame)I(n)U(se) 15:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a sockpuppet of Shnitzled? Afroghost (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, who are you may I ask? You are new here, and you are accusing me of suckpuppetry. U(ser)N(ame)I(n)U(se) 16:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see quite a bit of discussion of JetBlue Flight 292 in this discussion; I don't agree with using the same standard for both articles, and here's why.
I can't say that I remember the flight number, exactly, but I sure as hell remember the JetBlue incident. Not, particularly, because of the incident itself, but because of the media coverage. I remember being convinced we were about to see a catastrophe unfold on live national television, mainly because the reporters' reaction was along the lines of "ohmigod ohmigod ohmigod OHMIGOD OHMIGOD THE PLANE IS GOING TO CRASH OHMIGOD OHMIGOD". So I find the article on the subject less interesting as a document of a fairly minor incident than as a document of the media's sensationalization of a potential accident, if you will. I've given it a cursory glance and feel that it could use some work in that regard, but that's why I'd vote to keep it.
Granted, I'm speaking from the States, but I don't recall nearly that level of sensationalism surrounding this accident. It was picked up after it had happened; once people realized how comparatively minor it was they dropped it again. There was no build-up to some horrific and spectacular finish; there was no anticipation of a fiery end. There was just a brief amount of reporting on a potentially notable story; once it was established that there was nothing sensational about it, it was dropped.
That's my two cents' worth, at any rate. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 20:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They have not dropped it yet. The number of sources returned by Google News is growing (some added a few hours ago). --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Even so, I don't see that it's become sensationalized, which was my point about the other incident. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 22:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For what it's worth, I don't think JetBlue Airways Flight 292 should have its own article either. Perhaps both articles should be merged into a longer list or article. SkipSmith (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your opinion is noted, but that article survived two AfDs. --Oakshade (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These type of articles, when containing detailed, useful information like an aircraft FIN number, flight number and date are good for reference if an aircraft or line is a troubled ship or type. While it doesn't result in loss of life, it was an incident major enough to alter transport traffic flow of a world centre of commerce for many hours. The crash section may not apply or could be ambiguous as other ships of this type have had undercarriage issues during initial investigations of a fatal accident. While not every time the finish gets scratched should be included, if the same logic was used here, no one could use Wikipedia to see a pattern of problems with the DHC8 undercarriage which would leave mentioning of groundings seem sudden rather than something that was the result of many incidents.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SirDeath (talk • contribs) — SirDeath (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BA_CityFlyer_Flight_8456&oldid=1136113770"