Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Canada Flight 759


 * 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. Sjakkalle (Check!)  19:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Air Canada Flight 759

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An article on something that might have happened is not really noteworthy, crew were aware they made a mistake so nothing to see here. User:MilborneOne (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: This occurence is extraordinary by its impact, had strong media reports and inquiries follow-up have already been published and commented by the general press and aeronautical media, waiting for the next steps of the inquiry. If crew is unaware of a mistake that is a threat to aviation. Wykx  (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I add this article brings some interest with 500 daily page views. Wykx  (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation, Aviation accident task force and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Qualified under WP:NOTE. This is a notable topic that has received significant, sustained coverage from numerous secondary sources (United States and Canada news reports). The incident is receiving an NTSB investigation and an incident/causal analysis report will be generated once the investigation is complete. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: It is a non event, nothing bent and no injuries. Thousands of passengers are at " imminent risk" 24/7. Encyclopedia articles are not about what might have been. The existence of this article sets an unwelcome precedence and we must draw the line somewhere. Perhaps we should have articles about ham-fisted Cessna pilots who forgot to extend the gear on final and remembered at the last minute. - Samf4u (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - *Delete - Every airline flight that lands could have been an accident, but like this one, wasn't. This was mostly media sensationalism of a non-event. Dozens of non-accidents like this happen every day, but we don't have articles on them because nothing happened. Wikipedia doesn't have to join the news media in trying to sell newspapers or advertising clicks. Given that this incident has now resulted in changes to ATC procedures it now meets event notability requirements and so I am changing my opinion to "keep". - Ahunt (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Totally not notable.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 13:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Anything notable here would be better placed on another topic such as Media reactions to near-misses, ATC or FAA regulation changes resulting from the yet-to-be completed investigation, general Flight Safety design, etc and this (non-)incident would serve only as an example on those pages. Loopy30 (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: At least until the NTSB investigation finishes its report. I was initially dismissive of this event's significance, too; but then I found out further details, like just how bloody low (59 feet!) the aircraft was allowed to get over the taxiway before it pulled up. The tower controller (singular--only one was active at the time) appears to have been totally ineffective here: by the time he issued a go-around order, the aircraft was already climbing.
 * This is not just another "oh, nothing to see here" landing goof. This came way too damned close to being a catastrophe, and the fact that it's fallen off the radar of today's media, whose attention span is notoriously short, matters very little. Ahunt, you say "Dozens of non-accidents like this [my emphasis] happen every day", but consider the literal interpretation of that statement. I certainly hope they don't, because if they do then it will only be a matter of time before we have another horrible air crash. The U.S.'s airline safety record over the last decade has been damned near flawless, and complacency is the enemy of such records; as such, investigations of potentially catastrophic incidents matter. We have an article for the "Windsor incident", a DC-10 mishap in the early 1970s which killed no one but warned of a critical problem in the aircraft; sadly, that problem wasn't properly addressed before the Turkish Airlines disaster in Paris. Not being the NTSB, I can't be certain, but this incident would seem to be of similar import, with the potential problem in this case being weaknesses in SFO's flight controller management, who never should have allowed this situation to develop. Hopefully action will be taken to prevent another incident like this, in which fortune may not be so kind. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 *  Delete Keep per Ahunt above. Wikipedia has to draw the line somewhere and, with no harm done, this is the wrong side of the line. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Failing that, I'd be happy with the redirect to San Francisco International Airport per Mangoe, below. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. As a precedent, see T.F. Green Airport, specifically the 1999 runway incursion section. Similar type event (airliner collision near-miss, generating lots of interest at the time), but at the end of the day, no accident occurred. Thus, the incident has a section in other articles, but does not have its own article. I do think it would benefit the encyclopedia to make sure this Air Canada incident is covered in quality in the "Accidents and Incidents" section of the San Fransisco International Airport article. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I might have implied it, but to make explicit: I would also support a redirect to San Francisco International Airport. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Those incidents are different. The T.F.Green Airport incident is about an aircraft entering a wrong taxiway on the ground (confusion on the ground happened in a number of cases) while the Air Canada incident is about not landing on the active runway which is similar to Continental Airlines Flight 1883 and is a rare occurence for which a page is active since 2006. Wykx  (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong keep much worse and much more significant than the crew making a routine mistake, if the plane had been a few dozen feet lower it would have caused a disaster that would have made Tenerife pale in comparison. The article generated a significant and clearly notability-fulfilling amount of coverage, and there will be even more information available once the investigation reports are released. CJK09 (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep A major near-miss with significant coverage in independent reliable sources is notable. It's quite possible there will be significant recommendations coming out of the investigation. There is no "nothing bent and no injuries" exemption to WP:GNG for airplanes. Meters (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * REDIRECT to San Francisco International Airport where this is mentioned. Nobody was hurt, it made the news, and that's about it for now; the T. F. Green mention is a reasonable precedent. Mangoe (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete (regrettably, for all the work editors have already done) – A non-accident most likely due to human error alone (my guess: crew fatigued, non-adherence to SOPs; reliance on visual clues only, without cross-checking the ILS, and similar factors). Admittedly, it was a hair-risingly close call, but the scare factor does not increase notability; only sells more papers. If it turns out that something more fundamental was wrong (e.g. some weird distortion of the ILS signal or other unprecedented system failure), then the article can always be reinstated. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Human errors are fondamental in aviation accidents and incidents. Wykx  (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia does not keep an article about every single aviation safety incident that occurs at all regardless of its actual end result. We're not a newspaper, so it's not our role to keep an article about every current or recent news story — our role is to filter the news for what readers will still need to know and read about ten years from now, not just to uncritically create an article about every single thing that happens at all, and a near miss non-crash with no fatalities and no injuries, that got corrected in the nick of time and ended entirely without actual incident, is not a thing that passes the 10-year test. Bearcat (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As you write actual result is not the point, it is more what happened and this is a very uncommon occurrence. Wykx  (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect - Unnotable. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources. I disagree with comments that suggest this article represents an attempt to include 'every event or single thing'. If this kind of near miss was reported often, we might consider it routine and exclude coverage, or we might include them all, as an indication of major problems in air safety. This event, I believe, was highly unusual, so an article is warranted, as was, for example: 2007 San Francisco International Airport runway incursion. DonFB (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC) 04:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep As many others have said before me, this incident has received considerable press and attention from a variety of sources. This alone, in my opinion, makes it notable, and worthy of having a presence on the Wiki. Furthermore, this reasoning is compounded by the fact that the NTSB has opened an investigation into the incident. --Hunterm267''Talk 05:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep : it received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The generalist news are a bit sensationalist, but the near miss is indeed rare and impressive, and the incident also received significant coverage in specialised publications (4 articles on aviationweek, 3 on flightglobal, flyingmag, Flight safety foundation report...). Since it is investigated by the NTSB and TSB-Canada, recommendations will be issued from the incident and the article will be needed to explain its legacy, and is already a bit too large to be merged in another.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Extremely strong keep - already passes GNG in droves, and that's long before the final report is published. Near misses such as this event can also significantly improve aviation safety, as there is much to be learnt from them. Mjroots (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing: it hasn't generated any directives/recommendations yet. If it does, then we can have an article, but WP:CRYSTAL FAA outcomes aren't notable. Mangoe (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Everything that gets press coverage at all is not automatically a valid article topic just because press coverage exists. "Michelle Obama's arms" and "Donald Trump's hair" and "Hillary Clinton's cankles" and "Justin Trudeau's colourful socks" are also things that technically got enough press coverage to pass GNG too — the question that something like this needs to answer to merit an article is not "did press coverage happen?", but "is there a reason why anybody will still need an article about this to exist ten years from now?" And the answer to that question is no. Bearcat (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually,, the answer to that question is "we won't know for sure until the final report has been published". Mjroots (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then "the final report has been published and said something enduringly important about this" is the time for an article about it to get started, not "today, just in case". Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Changes have already been made following this incident. Mjroots (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

No one is making the case here that "Everything that gets press coverage" is a valid article topic. That's a straw man argument. As for the argument whether "anybody will still need an article about this" in ten years--I'd be interested in an answer to that question for Wikipedia's innumerable articles about, for example, professional wrestling, or video games. A wp:crystal ball argument can actually be made on both sides of the present topic: it will be important because of new official recommendations and regulations; or it won't be very important, because new mandates are not issued. For now, I believe, it suffices that this incident was serious and became notable, per WP guidelines. DonFB (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to San_Francisco_International_Airport#Accidents_and_incidents leaving behind a categorized redirect. Do not simply delete. Continues to generate considerable coverage long after the near-miss. Meets WP:SUSTAINED. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This is absolutely a notable event given the press coverage it received and the potential consequences it could have had. This was (fortunately) a rare and very unusual situation, not like a car almost crashing. See 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion and 2007 San Francisco International Airport runway incursion for similar articles that remain on Wikipedia.--Analogue Kid (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether or not "Other articles exist", it is not an argument either way. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Received significant press coverage, major incident, or almost incident, or whatever you want to call it. Smartyllama (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as a highly unusual event that received significant coverage in reliable sources. CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Good chance of leading to changes in procedures, according to authoritative sources like FAA, NTSB. Leondz (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This has lead to changes in ATC procedure at SFO. If this article is deleted, a host of other articles should be re-evaluated for notability.—  Brother Flounder  19:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion


 * The point is that if this amounts to something in terms of consequences, then an article can be written. Mangoe (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * My opinion on that point (the investigation leading to a form of consequences), is also that such a conclusion is not necessary to justify an article here. The article was written about a highly unusual and nearly catastrophic event that has received considerable media coverage. No plane should ever line up with and become ~50ft above a taxiway. Regardless of ultimate conclusions, this event was an aviation safety incident that has received considerable attention and achieved notability, and should be documented here accordingly. Even if an investigation does not prove a specific fault, something went wrong, and the fact it happened practically guarantees that it will amount to something. --Hunterm267''Talk 18:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This incident is about the closest chance of exceeding the death toll in the Tenerife disaster that has happened since that event. There was ~5ft between the bottom of the Air Canada aircraft and the top of the tail of one of the United Airlines aircraft. A major investigation (or three) underway means that lessons are going to be learnt. As I said above, GNG is already met in spades. In reply to Mangoe's point, I counter that with the fact that it is easier to write articles from fresh information. Mjroots (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if the Air Canada aircraft had actually hit the tail of one of the UA aircraft, that doesn't automatically equal everybody on all of the aircraft dying and therefore exceeding the death toll at Tenerife — a lot of followup things still have to happen in a certain way for people to start dying. And at any rate, a death toll that might maybe have exceeded the death toll of Tenerife if certain further things had happened, but they didn't happen that way and therefore the death toll was zero, is not all that it takes in and of itself for an article to be justified on Wikipedia. We judge notability based on what did happen, not what might have happened in some alternate reality we don't actually live in — we judge it based on how many people did die, not how many people might have died if worse had come to worst. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The "Lasting effects" section of the "Notability (events)" guideline states: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." That guidance disagrees with the rigid interpretation argued above that: "if this amounts to something in terms of consequences, then an article can be written." DonFB (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Besides this passing WP:GNG, the incident has lead to changes to landing procedures at SFO. --Oakshade (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep has enduring significance as it has prompted changes to airport procedures, which has received coverage in the media. f  e  minist  07:02, 19 August 2017 (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.