Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1999 T. F. Green Airport runway incursion


 * 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   no consensus. Arkyan 17:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

1999 T. F. Green Airport runway incursion

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I don't see how an individual case of a runway incursion is notable. If no one died, why is it on here? Wikipedia is not a directory of near-accidents. Tavix (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete does not seem notable in any way an incident of this type could be... didn't get a notable level of media coverage, didn't lead to any notable changes. --Rividian (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is more like a news.-- Free way guy T C 01:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - This incursion had implications on the NTSB and their regulation of runway traffic long after the incursion. . --Oakshade (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This was just one of many such incidents prompting discussion of changes. The motivating factor is not this incident but an overall increase in air traffic. --Dhartung | Talk 06:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This incident has sparked interrest, and the fact that the NTSB has released a recreation I think makes it notable. --J-Star (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article blatantly fails WP:AIRCRASH. Qworty (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Unless I'm missing something, I don't think it's possible to fail WP:AIRCRASH since no policies are listed there. If you go to WP:AIRPORT they have some suggested guidelines that are appropriate to this discussion. Townlake (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Proposed Guidelines are here . They are quite sensible and should be used as a rule of thumb in this case and others.  Clearly, this article isn't even close. Qworty (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per User: Oakshade and User:J-Star. J I P  | Talk 17:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not only is this article unsourced, but it doesn't even describe an event--it describes a non-event. It's actually an article about something that didn't happen.  We're through the looking-glass here, folks.  Wikipedia articles should be about things that have actually happened, not things that didn't happen. Qworty (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In aviation, a runway incursion is an event. Sometimes a very serious one.  The article is actually very well sourced. --Oakshade (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And have a look at the list of examples in the link you provided. Do you seriously think this article describes anything as significant as the examples listed?  I don't. Qworty (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody says it does. But that's a red herring argument. Many incursions are still notable as this one is.  There are no WP:NOT-AS-BAD-AS or WP:MUST-BE-DEATHS clauses in our guidelines.--Oakshade (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article describes a major incursion event and is referenced by outside links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Driftwood87 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge back to T. F. Green Airport. This has a heading "Incidents", which points to the article we are discussing.  The present article will need to be trimmed down to one paragraph for the purpose.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's too much topic-specific content in this article to be merged into T. F. Green Airport.--Oakshade (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to boil it down to one sentence: "Two planes came close to each other on Runway 5R on December 6, 1999." That's it.  Period.  In fact, this entire ridiculous article should be boiled down to that one sentence right now.  And then deleted. Qworty (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your WP:IDONTLIKEIT opinion is noted. For the rest of us, this is an encyclopedia where topics are preferably written in expansive detail as opposed to a one sentence summary or a definition. --Oakshade (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. This article announces its completely banal triviality in every line. But my favorite one is this: "The US Airways crew operating Flight 2998 were honored for their actions of avoiding a near-disaster."  They didn't avoid a disaster, you see--all they avoided was a near-disaster!  This is absurd.  If they had avoided a disaster it would be one thing.  But they avoided nothing more notable than a near disaster.  And that's just one of the non-events that makes this article a total disaster. Qworty (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It might be hard for you to understand, but some "near disasters" are considered notable, like this one that garnered considerable NTSB scrutiny on runway safety. --Oakshade (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep following Oakshade: some of the sources in the article note that this incursion had influence on regulatory bodies. Nyttend (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral At present there is no guideline to judge notability requirement of such articles. I think a guideline will be very much needed for this types of articles which document incidents, in this case aircrash. WP:N states the subject matter of the article should have received coverage in multiple reliable sources and the coverage should be significant coverage. The article has some sources, but since their is no fatalities in this incident, I am not sure if this article merits inclusion or not.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.