Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alaska Airlines Flight 779 (2nd nomination)


 * 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. It's snowing here, and the nominator has !voted keep. (non-admin closure)  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   14:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Alaska Airlines Flight 779
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was previously deleted following an AfD in 2013. created for discussion to occur as to whether it passes inclusion criteria. Nominally the nominator, I have not yet !voted, and will probably not !vote unless I a) have to, or b) see aparticularily good vote that I will per. L3X1 (distant write)  19:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep- The old version of the article is nothing like the current version. The old version that was deleted in 2013 is terrible.  (It can be read here;http://www.rc135.com/0011/ALASKA_A.HTM)  There is no reason to delete it now; notability is established on the talk page; (Civil accident fatalities, civil accident hull loss, civil accident that changed aviation)  Secondary sources are provided, despite the fact that they are hard to come by for and accident in the time.  The cause of the accident was rather unusual, not an ordinary case of pilot error, making it all the more noteworthy.  The old article should have been deleted in 2013 because it was crap; it contained numerous factual inaccuracies that led to the notability being misunderstood, as well as numerous grammar errors and poor formatting.  Keep in mind that guidelines are present to keep thousands of air crashes in combat from having their own article, not a crash of a chartered airliner.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep- Aircraft owned and operated by Alaska Airlines and flown by civilians. Big aircraft like a DC-6 destroyed and 6 fatalities meets notability IMHO. If the article survives I'll be happy to make some improvements. Samf4u (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment the original article at 1st AfD is not that different to this one and crew-only cargo flights are not normally considered as noteworthy for an article. MilborneOne (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not Really: The original article is here: (http://www.rc135.com/0011/ALASKA_A.HTM) note the lack of sufficient citations, length, topics covered, grammar, weird wording... As for "crew-only cargo flights are not normally considered as noteworthy for an article" that is blatantly false.  In fact, there is a whole list dedicated to mostly crew-only cargo flights: List of fatal accidents to commercial cargo aircraft  There are plenty of articles on crew-only cargo flights, including FedEx Express Flight 80, FedEx Express Flight 14, FedEx Express Flight 647, FedEx Express Flight 910 (which didn't even have fatalities), FedEx Express Flight 630 (no fatalities), UPS Flight 006, UPS Flight 1354, Lufthansa Cargo Flight 8460, Flying Tiger Line Flight 282, United Airlines Flight 2885, Flying Tiger Line Flight 66, Korean Air Cargo Flight 8509, Korean Air Cargo Flight 6316, MK Airlines Flight 1602, Avient Aviation Flight 324, AeroUnion Flight 302, Asiana Airlines Flight 991, National Airlines Flight 102, and Sun Way Flight 4412.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: The incident clearly satisfies the guidance at WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents (not policy on notability, I know, but helpful). It can be improved, but is a neutral and sourced article with sufficient details on what happened and why.  EdChem (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - a large commercial airliner was lost with all on board. Changes made to operation of airfields  in the  USA as a  direct result of this accident. I oppose the argument that being a  cargo flight equates to a lack  of notability. Mjroots (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject is notable. L3X1 (distant write)  14:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets notability guidelines though much more is in print as opposed to online. This article is not vastly different from other widely accepted airline crash article. It was a major airline, flight number assigned, everyone died. In 1961, a Douglas DC-6A was a large and significant aircraft, much like if a Boeing 757 crashed today (the 757 is discontinued but not considered ancient). If there is a desire to delete, the reasoning was not clearly explained. It is customary for the nominator to advocate deletion, not for the nominating editor to be neutral or pro-keep. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 25 April 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.