Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Nippon Airways Flight 8254


 * 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. Arguments based only on the WP:AIRCRASH essay carry little weight, and in the debate of WP:LASTING vs. WP:NOTNEWS, the latter seems to have a stronger claim as the consensus. RL0919 (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

All Nippon Airways Flight 8254

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not notable aviation incident. Runway overruns are very common. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I do agree with the nominator that runway overruns are quite common; however, I would say the two things that make this not run of the mill are: (1) there was a hull loss which is not particularly common in plane crashes (2) there was a recommendation from the aviation regulators that would possibly qualify for LASTING. Having said that, there is very little news coverage I can find for a hull loss, which puts me a bit at a loss. This in my head should have the articles to pass GNG, but I don't see them yet. I think it's possible I am not finding them despite being out there, very likely because I speak no Japanese. TartarTorte 19:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Here, regulations were changed and it was a hull-loss, which is very uncommon during an excursion. Definitely does pass WP:AIRCRASH but per User:TartarTorte, bit hard to find references, so not sure if it really does pass WP:GNG. But again, WP:AIRCRASH is a definite yes to keep. Username006 (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Where did you read that "regulations were changed"? The report contains recommendations; whether they led to regulatory change is a different matter. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete – The event is just a mishap during a training flight that left a crew member slightly bruised; a hull loss per se does not imply notability. The article is based on a single source (the accident report) and on the ASN entry, which mirrors the report. An entry in the yet-to-be-written List of Boeing 767 hull losses article would be plenty, instead of a standalone article. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This article passes both WP:AIRCRASH with the hull loss and WP:LASTING with the subsequent accident board safety recommendations. Benjamin22b (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Virtually all jetliner accident reports end with some safety recommendations; the point is whether such recommendations had any lasting regulatory or operational impact in the industry, and there is zero evidence of that (unsurprisingly: the recommendations are so vague, boiling down to 'instructors should be more careful'). --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  00:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to note that WP:AIRCRASH is an essay that itself says TartarTorte 13:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - I feel that this falls under the purview of WP:NOTNEWS. No long-lasting coverage of the event.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep WP:AIRCRASH & WP:LASTING. Dgw  Talk  01:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Trivial event. ANOT NEWS is the best reason.  DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, not policy... yet it does offer some guidance and the rationale in the essay is persuasive. I'm not convinced WP:LASTING applies, as the changes to policy listed in the article don't seem sweeping, but more along the lines of "try to do better next time, ok?"  The hull argument seems reasonable enough to me, however, so I'll lend my support to the keep side, weak support though it be. Fieari (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:AIRCRASH not a valid criteria, no real evidence of WP:LASTING. All things considered, this appears to be a largely inconsequential incident.-KH-1 (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per LASTING and NOTNEWS. The consequences were minor recommendations and guidelines. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2022 (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.