Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Transat Flight 961


 * 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. John254 00:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Air Transat Flight 961

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

Non-notable routine aviation incident in which nobody was hurt. Fails WP:N, WP:NOT.  Sandstein  23:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Besides being the in-depth subject of multiple secondary reliable sources, the incident instigated scrutiny and changes in inspection policy of rudders on A-300s after years of investigation as reported by the Toronto Star . There are no WP:MUST_BE_DEATHS guidelines or anything like it in Wikipedia.  --Oakshade (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep[edit] Why delete?: Air Transat Flight 961 Link title

Sandstein, with all do respect, are you a pilot? As an airline pilot myself, TSC961 was a major and life threatening incident, but great pilots on the flightdeck dealt with it appropriately. You say all aviation incidents are too common and not all can have a page, yet you have a page on jetBlue Flight 292? That was a small incident, a malfunctioning nose gear and not life threatening. The only reason it was largely publicized was because it was jetBlue's first major (albeit minor) incident. Another thing far too common is rwy incursions and mid-air near misses, yet you allow a page regarding the JAL near miss with the DC-10 and 747. If this is not enough information as to why not delete the page, I would be glad to explain the situation in far more detail. Imagine being in an Airbus A310 and losing a rudder-not a common event. I would not post anything about the recent 'smoke in the cabin' on that AA 757 at LAX. Those are too common-twice a week maybe. The Transat incident was an isolated event that provided insights into AA 587, and so, sir, I do not think you could tell the 271 pax/crew on that Airbus that it was minor-a dutch roll. Imagine two experienced, widebody Airbus pilots, doing a secondary walkaround, and to their shock, they had no rudder. By the way, I was on that aircraft (not the pilot though). My aritcle has more place here than JB292. This is not a routine incident. We do not practice rudder separation in the simulator, so, with all do respect, please only state what you know and I trust you are not a pilot. I mean no disrespect and hope that we can be friends but please save that for a topic you have experience in. Thank you Oakshade for your comment.

Thanks very much, Captain Cody Diamond —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boeing747200 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, Mr Diamond. No, I am not a pilot, just an encyclopedia editor. I apologise if my nomination of this article for deletion surprises you, but since we are an encyclopedia aimed at the general public, our criteria for inclusion are somewhat generic and do not necessarily take into account what the experts in a particular field consider notable. According to our general notability criteria, a topic is notable for inclusion as its own article if it has received substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, such as mainstream media or relevant, preferably peer-reviewed expert publications. The article is currently sourced to a website by the Flight Safety Foundation, a website called airdisaster.com, and a website called airdisaster.net. It is not immediately clear that these meet our requirements for reliable sources. Moreover, we as a community of editors have come to an agreement that not all that is newsworthy is also worthy for inclusion, as noted at WP:NOT. For these reasons, we have recently agreed to delete a number of articles about aviation incidents as unsuitable for inclusion in a general purpose encyclopedia, inclunding American Airlines Flight 31, XL Airways Flight 237, Flybe Flight 7016, Air Mauritius Flight MK745, Qantas Flight 692, AirAsia Flight 104 and United Airlines Flight 858. If, however, there does turn out to be coverage in multiple reliable sources that indicates how this incident is substantially more notable than other incidents in which some malfunction occurred aboard an aircraft, I'll be happy to withdraw my nomination. (I do admit that I did not notice at first glance that the problem was that the aircraft lost a whole rudder; I recommend writing an effective article lead to avoid this.) Thanks for your understanding,   Sandstein   07:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind response Sandstein. I understand what you have said but still disagree. You also have a story about Richard Reid and American Airlines Flight 63. Now that is a regular story. Today, there was a SWISS A321 that diverted to GVA b/c of a bomb threat. And another thing, just because this was not in the news does not mean people should not know about it. Without people coming out with something as important as this, there would be no journalism. Why should we only focus on things in the news-half of it is wrong anyway. So, why not post something that is newsworthy but not discovered yet. It keeps things going. All of the above articles listed are 'normal' emergencies paracticed in simulators and have published procedures on how to deal with them. There is no procedure about how to fly a plane, let alone an Airbus A310, without a rudder. So, I ask of you to please not delete the article based on what I have said. I hope we can have a friendly relationship on wikipedia. If you need any more reasons/examples as to why not to delete, please do not heitate to ask.

Thank you for your time, Captain Diamond —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boeing747200 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Also Sandstein, Aviation Safety Network is a trusted source with CNN. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boeing747200 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'm not sure that I understand you correctly. We do not have an article about American Airlines Flight 63 as such; the title redirects to an article about the 2001 Shoe bomb plot. We're also not allowed to write about "something that is newsworthy but not discovered yet": that's called "original research" here on Wikipedia, and it's forbidden.
 * I've noted, however, that Gatoclass has added a "Guardian" report on the incident to the article, so I'm neutral on the deletion right now. It would help if we could show that another reliable source (i.e. one with a verifiable reputation for fact-checking) has dedicated substantial coverage to the incident.  Sandstein   21:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Let me see if I understand this right.  There were no injuries.  The plane landed safely.  It did a "dutch roll", which, just as a "dutch treat" being no treat at all, is not a roll, but rather a case where the sides of the airplane rock up and down, and the crew climbed altitude and overcame the dutch roll.  The broken rudder was replaced.  The airplane is still in service.  OK, I'm glad this wasn't a tragedy like USAir Flight 427 was.  Perhaps this footnote in aviation history can be mentioned elsewhere.  Mandsford (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That there were no deaths or injuries has absolutely nothing to do with notability and doesn't mean it wasn't the in-depth subject of independent sources which is the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. Many flights with no deaths are in fact very notable, like Air Transat Flight 236 and JetBlue Airways Flight 292. --Oakshade (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's more than that. Heavier-than-air flight requires 3-axis control.  The rudder controls "yaw", or rotation about the vertical axis.  (See the article on Aircraft flight control systems.)  Loss of any axis of control is a very dangerous reduction in the pilots' ability to fly the aircraft at all. That's what was missing following the catastrophic structural failure of the rudder on that flight. Ikluft (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

keep. Hardly a 'routine' incident. Was investigated by Transportation Safety Board of Canada - TSBC Report. Number of recommendations made by TSBC and acted on by, variously, TC, EASA and Airbus. Looking at the notability guidelines for Aviation accidents, we find: unusual circumstances (control surface total detachment is definitely unusual) and "It is a non-injury incident which materially contributes to a change in industry or aircraft procedures". So it seems that two of the criteria suggested are met. --MadScot666 (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep and improve. Safe return without rudder is remarkable itself. NVO (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral It looks like the notability lies in the airworthiness directive issued by the French and later other authorites, problem is the article fails to mention it! A few inline citations would help. I would suggest give it a chance to improve as it is written it is not notable! and could be deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep Meets notability and reliable sources requirements by current refs, which appear to have been added since the AfD nom. A Google search for "Air Transat Flight 961" clearly indicates potential for more refs to be found and added - so the development of the topic appears to have a path forward. When trying to determine if an aviation incident is significant, I think other editors are trying to determine whether it was a routine event within the training of the flight crew. This is similar to Air Transat Flight 236, China Airlines Flight 006 and the Gimli Glider in that passengers experienced injuries and the plane was damaged, but the plane was eventually repaired and returned to service. The photo of the broken/missing rudder in this case is enough to indicate that this event is significantly different. The fact that procedures were changed at the airline and the aircraft manufacturer as a result of it make it significant. Actually, this story is even more outside of the routine due to its origination in Cuba, event in US airspace and return to Cuba. Ikluft (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * After making the above comment, I added the TSB Canada accident investigation report as a ref. So notability and reliable sources shouldn't be issues at all for anyone any more. Ikluft (talk) 20:36, 26 August 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.