Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porter Airlines Flight 2691

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. ✗plicit 05:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Porter Airlines Flight 2691[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There is some news coverage but I doubt anyone will remember this incident by the end of the year. Basically, a medium-sized plane overran the runway while landing and ended up in a grassy area. No injuries, no damage on the plane. I think this is a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS. Pichpich (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Canada. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can be adequately covered in the Porter Airlines article. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This could simply be appended to the existing page, an independent article for such a minor event isn't necessary. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not our job to maintain an article about every airline safety incident that happens — our job is to maintain articles about incidents that pass the ten year test for enduring significance, which this clearly doesn't. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have my doubts about this one; but SongdaTalas what are these other runway incursion articles from last year that you mentioned when you removed the Prod? Nfitz (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DHL Aero Expreso Flight 7216 and Korean Air Flight 631 and there was a Nok Air incident similar to these, but it doesn't have an article. Songda Talas 00:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those were both very serious, with the planes being seriously damaged and dismantled. Looking at one of the flight data websites, this Porter plane returned to Billy Bishop a couple of days later, and returned to regular service today (Thursday) on the Thunder Bay run; gosh, looks like it pretty much went over my house just after take-off from YTZ! A non-event. Data also shows the landing in the Soo was on the 16th, not the 17th. Nfitz (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also Bearcat - 10YT is from an essay (WP:RECENTISM) not a policy. And in the essay that section is referred to as a "thought experiment". Although I agree with the sentiment - I hope we have better guidelines or policies! Nfitz (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - plane flew back to it's base at Billy Bishop a couple of days later and returned to service on April 27. Not significant. Nfitz (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is too serious. It's WP:NOTNEWS and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. CastJared (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this doesn't warrant a standalone article. A mention on the Porter Airlines article would be more than adequate. PK T(alk) 14:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:NOTNEWS.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:01, 1 May 2023 (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.