Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin–Bergstrom International Airport runway incident


 * 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 redirect to Austin–Bergstrom International Airport. Spartaz Humbug! 21:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Austin–Bergstrom International Airport runway incident
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )
 * This article was previously put up for AfD as Southwest Airlines Flight 1392. It was subsequently moved here.



Does not appear to meet WP:NEVENT. Available coverage appears to be limited to newspapers. While there may be some secondary coverage available, as an event with minimal lasting consequences, it would likely still fall short of meeting the WP:LASTING criterion. Also see Articles for deletion/Indian Airlines Flight 117 Walrus Ji (talk) 08:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Engr.  Smitty   Werben 09:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Engr.  Smitty   Werben 09:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Engr.  Smitty   Werben 09:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete – Stragglers hit by aircraft are somewhat unusual, but that doesn't necessarily make them encyclopedic. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 *  Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to Southwest_Airlines. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Why redirect to airlines? since the incident occurred at the airport why not redirect it to Austin–Bergstrom_International_Airport. If redirected, I would prefer a redirect to the airport page. Walrus Ji (talk) 17:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 *  Reply - I have no objection to redirecting to Austin–Bergstrom_International_Airport. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 *  Delete  Move to Southwest Airlines Flight 1392 and Redirect to Austin–Bergstrom International Airport - Worth mentioning in the airport article, possibly, but the title would be ambiguous as a redirect - if no content is actually merged there there's no reason to keep the redirect in this case. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Changed to redirect for attribution as content has been merged. Should be at the title suggested as standard for aircraft incidents and not ambiguous. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Austin–Bergstrom_International_Airport, it appears to already be mentioned in that section, and insofar as it's ambiguous, the ambiguity is limited to the other incidents also listed there. signed,Rosguill talk 19:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ,Note for the closing admin, that I did merge some useful content to the target article proposed above., what is the ambiguity? Walrus Ji (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , my comment was directed at The Bushranger's argument. What I'm saying is that while in a vacuum, it's ambiguous which incident this redirect would refer to, any possible option within that halo of ambiguity would be present at the proposed target. signed,Rosguill talk 19:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is a somewhat usual incident, but the article never got beyond WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. The general and aviation media all reported on it when it happened, but never did any follow up and, as far as I can tell no one has published any findings on the investigation that was done by local authorities. I did some extensive digging on the incident and discovered that the person killed was a local resident of the city and had a prior arrest for "public intoxication" on 24 July 2019, only nine months prior. There probably is a more extensive story here about what happened and why, but the media seems to have dropped it and not investigated to any degree at all, leaving us with no refs to build an article on. More could be added from the ref I cited above and others like that (of which there are several), but it would end up impaled upon WP:SYNTHESIS. Sadly, the way it stands the story is just a news oddity - one death for no discernible reason and with no context, so I don't see any point in keeping it as it is. Because the incident is not known in the press as the "Austin–Bergstrom International Airport runway incident" and the article name is not even close to reasonable search term for this subject, I see no point in a redirect. - Ahunt (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation, WikiProject Airlines, WikiProject Airports and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Austin–Bergstrom International Airport. As User:Walrus Ji has indicated that they merged some of the content from this article to that one, the edit history of this article cannot be deleted outright for the sake of attribution. -- Kinu t/c 22:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 *  Reply - I concur with this statement. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Simply not notable.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 00:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per OP. Some above have argued for a redirect. But the title is too vague to be useful, a redirect is pointless. If anything were to be created as a redirect, it would need to be more specific. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment this survived an AFD in May, why is it being renominated again?  RecycledPixels (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 *  Reply - Wrong. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The article was AFDed as Articles for deletion/Southwest Airlines Flight 1392, but subsequently renamed. BilCat (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 *  Reply - If this is the case, the old AFD needs to be listed at the top of this AFD, and the AFD should be allowed to run for one whole week after that. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is it being nominated for AFD again? Because it has had no lasting effects, fails WP:NEVENT. - Ahunt (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's what you said in the other AFD as well, which resulted in a keep. I'm just puzzled why someone (not you) can just renominate an article for AFD a few months later with the same rationale when there has already been a consensus to keep, and not much has changed with the article since then.  RecycledPixels (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , WP:CONSENSUS may change any time. Anyone can nominate an article anytime, if he feels there are good reasons for it. WP:LASTING is not seen in this incident after all those months. The AfD1 should not really have been kept, it was a mistaken assessment by folks who voted keep. Walrus Ji (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The previous rationale was poorly argued and did not invoke NEVENT, as you suggest it did. The current rationale is more policy based. Nor were the keep votes evidence-based, just unsupported opinion. The present rationale and delete votes are better informed. WP:CONSENSUS is not based only on quantity, but also on quality of arguments presented. Sometimes it changes, sometimes it doesn't. We shall soon see how this case pans out. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I stand by my comments in the initial AfD and agree with the above editors: the previous AfD was not properly closed. The article should have been deleted at the first AfD in May 2020, based on WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NEVENT. It was kept at the time because editors argued that the event would be proven notable, with lasting effects, overtime. That has not happened and it was pretty clear to anyone with an aviation background at the time that it wouldn't. One guy climbed over a fence and got hit by an airliner - end of story. Even the airport has not changed anything they do, didn't make the fence higher, didn't make trespassers get passes. The only oddity about this story is that none of the investigating authorities have released any reports on it at all and the press has reported nothing since the day of the occurrence. I suspect the police, coroner, FAA and airport authority reports all just concluded that he climbed over the fence for undetermined reasons and closed the case. But that just makes it even less notable - no follow up at all, no lasting effects and nothing to be learned from it for any of the parties concerned. Because the first AfD was not decided correctly, based upon the evidence available and Wikipedia policy, we are back here again to correct that. An article is not AfD-proof just because it has been through the process once before. It is kind of a waste of time to have to debate these things a second time, but the first one was not decided correctly and people predicted the story would become notable over time, so here we are. - Ahunt (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete The section reiterating this accident at the airport page is sufficient. I feel like this type of incident doesn't have as much to do with the airplane itself as it's a 'security breach' of the airport, and as mentioned above, I'd want to see sources about impact on airport ops to warrant notability. IATA needs pages like this, WP not quite so much. (But what a way to go) Estheim (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2020 (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.