Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Airways Flight 2069

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. L Faraone 02:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British Airways Flight 2069[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this is notable. There were a couple of injuries, but there doesn't seem to be much long-term notability. Beerest355 Talk 00:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what kind of notability is a standard but I had guessed Polaris awards, RADAR award and multi-million dollar settlement would be enough. Hoodinski (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 00:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 00:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 00:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the relevant policy/guideline is WP:AIRCRASH. I have found limited external references (bio of Capt. Hagan as a paid speaker) which suggest that this incident was responsible for instigation of the locked cockpit policy on British Airways aircraft, although this policy was not implemented before the Sept. 11 2001 hijackings. I have been unable to find the relevant notices/directives from the UK CAA (any wikieditors in the UK with better access?). This would constitute a major policy change as a result of the incident and would meet WP:AIRCRASH. Vulcan's Forge (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found the relevant piece of information (locking cockpit doors policy caused by the incident) and added it to the article. Hoodinski (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not in the source you cited. It says cockpit doors were not locked despite this incident, but would be "to increase protection against hijackings after the atrocities in America". Peter James (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, since it says that cockpit doors were not locked despite this incident, the source sees to be arguing the exact opposite of what it was being used to support. I've removed the claim from the article. Dricherby (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"the relevant policy/guideline is WP:AIRCRASH." No, it is not - WP:AIRCRASH is not a policy or a guideline, it's just a guide for the participants of WikiProject Aviation on articles covering airplane incidents. The primary policy would instead be notability. Beerest355 Talk 18:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article, although it needs minor clean up, is relevant to its topic. It is a notable attempted hijacking, and besides is listed a 'C' article, not a Stub nor Start. — L. Zheng Wei (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC) 13:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE, and the article's rating is irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is notable, for by checking it against the general notability guideline it has reliable sources (several renowned newspapers mainly) and is clearly independent of the subject. For irrelevance, the article has lots of suitable information in the article, so that's that. L. Zheng Wei (talk) 23:43, 28 June 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, czar · · 05:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage at the time and mention in the Telegraph article even in the wake of 9/11, and the lawsuit two years later show lasting effect. Dricherby (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mostly for the same reasons. That is if I as creator get to cast a vote on that. Hoodinski (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article creators are always welcome to contribute. Bear in mind that AfDs aren't votes, though. Dricherby (talk) 17:53, 1 July 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.