Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conair Flight OY 482 from Málaga

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conair Flight OY 482 from Málaga[edit]

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

Unremarkable aviation incident. WP:NOTNEWS, especially stale news of a trivial nature. TheLongTone (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Concur with nom. MB 15:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor aviation incident, of which there are many. Nothing makes this one notable. WP:NOTNEWS Neiltonks (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hardly noteworthy for a mention in Wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note Moved the page to Conair Flight 482 as per Wiki name conventions for airline flight articles. Antonio Fly me Martin (dimelo) 22:35, April 10, 2017 (UTC)
And that said, I will vote delete-otherwise all other "interesting" landings in history would warrant an article as well. Fly this Martin (say what?) 22;37, 10 April, 2017 (UTC)
Keep And frankly what's wrong ? Which guideline is this about ? Noteworthyness ! I have all the sources from both the Danish and the Swedish newspapers assembled. The Captain in question was my dad, yes. The Memory words are published in Helsingborgs Dagblad, written by me, but a bit cut down by the newspaper. I can remove that source, it's in no way essential for the event back in 1984. A similar article about this event has been on Danish Wikipedia for several years. Must there really be many deaths, for an article to be of encyclopedic value ? This was a very severe incident, written in British English mainly (If criticism is about the word "Undercarriage" - although Boeing uses "gear" simply) .

I must also add, that this was a case in which the solution included to go against the manufacturer's very clear manual . The hydraulic pumps should NEVER be put back on after a severe loss of hydraulic fluid. They were 2 minutes from landing without a port-side landing-gear, it would have become the death of many, up to all approximately 185 souls on board. It became an emergency as soon as the the port-side gear could not be lowered manually neither. Circulation with the three doors open causes a noise that cannot be described in words. And the Boeing 720B was a really noisy bird as well. (It also involves a Flight Engineer, of which there are very few left today. This kind of illustrate what work they did in their time. I could attempt to copy all texts that I have, without the pictures. If that would help. (And please my alias is explained at my home page) Boeing720 (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GNG - non-notable NON-incident--Petebutt (talk) 05:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable incident....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Petebutt the sources are reliable, Scandinavian newspapers (including tabloids) are more accurate than some of Britains worst examples. (BT and Ekstrabladet doesn't compare to The Sun or Daily Mail etc). Danish Politiken is equal to The Guardian, and generally considered as very reliable. And so are Swedish local/regional morning newspapers as well. If this had happened today, at Heathrow, and been mentioned for 10 seconds at the Nine o'clock news, would that changed anything ? I stongly oppose matters of unreliable sources, at least. I have however become enlightened about accidents with 17 deaths that has been erased. But I sooner think that was a strong misstake. Here is by the way, a link to the corresponding event at Danish Wiki [1], it was initiated in april 2010, 7 years ago. Wikipedia is supposed to have a World-Wide perspective. Cheers Boeing720 (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per NOTNEWS Spiderone 12:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Spiderone I'm sorry, but I frankly don't understand your comment. This happened at 1.May.1984. Boeing720 (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the final reference, is there any other evidence of a lasting impact for this event? It was newsworthy at the time but so are a lot of things that aren't notable enough to get their own article. Spiderone 07:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can understand better now. This never became a crach, as the port-side gear actually did come out, when the F/E got permission to put the hydraulic pumps back on - in strong contrast to was allowed in Boeing's manual. But if this had not worked, the aircraft simply had to land (due to no fuel left). Since the gear DID come out, could the landing be done as usual. But the crew as well as the passengers didn't know if it would come down or not, 1-2 minutes before landing. IF landing on starboard and nose gear alone, naturally the wing would had touched the ground as soon as the aerodynamic updrift fades away during breaking. Due to pure physics, can't an airliner stand still nor drive slower than 80-100 knots airspeed without one of its central gears. (And then the runway ends...)The haedline at page 2 of Politiken 2.May.1984 (in Danish) "Passagererne græd af skræk mens katastofen truede" means "The passengers cried of horror as the disaster awaited". Boeing720 (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General comment I'm certainly not "fighting" for my life here. But I just can't find any of the given delete-reasons to hold. I also get the impression that perhaps aviation-related articles for some reason has been given too high "noteworthy standard" when comparing to many other topics. For instance - how many of our geographical articles are noteworthy from a world wide perspective ? (Next to every settlement with more han a few hundred inhabitants have an article - and some of them are 10-20 times longer than this one. Without having any perticular attractions. (I don't want to point a finger in order to exemplify this statement, either must all be mentioned or none, I feel. But I assume you get my point about this). Also, like I wrote, I think the 17 deaths in a previously deleted article appear to have been a wrong call. And this may (?) have sat a higher "noteworthy-standard" within the topic of aviation-related articles than within other topics (?). If the criticism was about all inline references "in one bunch" , I could easier understand the deletion nomination. But I find it noteworthy - since the aircraft was 1-2 minutes away from landing without the left (port-side) landing gear. All who have knowledge of jet airliners, knows what that means. The port-side wing would have touched the ground at an airspeed of at least 80 knots, presumably higher. That would have resulted in a crash with many deaths. Lastly , this has nothing more to do with my old man or his death in August, I simply have the newspaper articles assembled. And in this case was it the Flight Engineer that was "a hero", if any. But it was certainly not something that happens "every day" within aviation. Could a more brief comment be made in the article Conair of Scandinavia ? All well and thanks Boeing720 (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the problem is that near misses or accidents that may have happened are not that uncommon, although some good work was done on saving that aircraft in the end it landed safely without any injuries. Some may get a mention in the press when it happens but most "may have beens" are never mentioned at all or never mentioned again (hence the NOTNEWS comments above). It is frustrating that in other areas of wikipedia what would seem to be trivia compared to the efforts of your father and his crew to save the aircraft but nothing can be done about that here, thats just how wikipedia is. MilborneOne (talk) 07:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It could probably warrant a mention in the Conair of Scandinavia like you say. It's definitely not had enough coverage for its own article, though, despite the amount of effort put in to gather sources. Spiderone 08:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Milbourne One - I think I understand what you mean. We certainly cannot have articles about every You-Tube video of difficult cross-wind landings and very late turn arounds. But this was an emergency situation (of a uncommon nature, I would say), due to two separate aircraft malfunctions (the hydraulic failure and then the port-side wheel which should be able to crank down, but was stuck) and the fact that the solution was to go againt the manufacturer, Boeing's, manuals. That's not common, to my knowledge. And this was also certainly a worse situation than a collapsed (or wrong locked) nose-wheel during landing. A central wheel which doesn't come down and locks is far more dangerous, I would say. And in what speed the wing would have hit the ground, would in any case have been high enough in order to destroy the entire aircraft. I can better understand criticism of the use of sources. But it was noteworthy at the time, indeed. Especially Politiken wouldn't write about a "near miss", not even if they had got the story. I also feel we could be a bit more "including" regarding death-crashes. And I feel there is some difference between "near misses" and "emergencies due to malfunctions which ends well". (I read about an Airbus, which couldn't dump fuel, that soon after take-off had got some kind of computer-alarm, they then circulated around the American airport/city in the deserts-areas for five hours, before landing without problems. I can imagine this was very disturbing for the passengers. But cannot compare to what happened during this flight, in terms of danger). I do however accept the verdict and nothing is taken personally. All the best - to you all. Boeing720 (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2017 (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.