Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Passaredo Transportes Aéreos Flight 2231

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. Per WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passaredo Transportes Aéreos Flight 2231[edit]

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

Minor crash of no significance. No deaths and minimal media coverage means it's just not notable. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT would be relevant here. C628 (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, the crash has received significant coverage in Brazil, from what I've seen, but I don't foresee historical significance. Diego Grez (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, thus fails notability guidelines Chzz ► 00:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. This article is less than a stub and there's no death and only two minor injuries according to a source. Nothing remarkable. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability. Only minor injuries and this is not the first hull loss for this type of aircraft. --Ferengi (talk) 07:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 內容非常糟糕，毫無關注度!--J87j8787 (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not the news. No evidence of lasting impact. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an airliner was substantially damaged, probably written off. Has been covered in reliable sources such as Aviation Herald, JACDEC, Aviation Safety Network, Midiacon etc. Improve the article instead of nominating it for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all in favor of improving articles, but only when there's a good reason to, and I see this article as lacking that. Unless it leads to major consequences, there's nothing this is notable for. Unlike other recent crashes, this received minimal coverage, and it hasn't had any repercussions. A similar article I looked at, Merpati Nusantara Airlines Flight 836, was IMO notable for worldwide and widespread coverage, as well as sparking new safety recommendations. This incident lacks all of that. C628 (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since the aircraft is a hull-loss and the Aviation Herald source indicates pilot error on approach and the existence of a berm immediately before the runway. The aircraft suffered a tail strike as well as landed short of runway. It was dropped in place. As to the Merpati Nusantara Airlines Flight 836 article you cite, nothing in it states that it sparked any new safety recommendations. It just has a lot of details filled in on the parameters of the accident and how many hours the pilots have on the type. You couldn't have found a better example of an article like this stub we're voting on. :) --Mareklug ^talk 08:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now it does. I'd seen that in one of the refs, but failed to add it to the article at that point. Probably should have either added it last night or provided a link here. Oops. C628 (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, previous delete votes. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no one died, no one injured, it's not an accident! Kubek15 ^write/sign 20:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while Kubek15's assertion that this was not an accident is incorrect (if an aircraft suffers any damage at all it is classified as an accident), the accident is not worthy of an article in this case. I can't see why the berm or pilot error confer notability; obstructions near the runway threshold are extremely common at airports and pilot error very often plays a role in aircraft crashes. It falls foul of WP:NOTNEWS and does not meet WP:AIRCRASH either. I'd say merge it to the airline article (where there is as yet no mention of the crash), but there's nothing really to merge. YSSYguy (talk) 12:55, 28 August 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.