Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Airways Flight 268


 * 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   no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

British Airways Flight 268

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable incident. Aviation Safety Network doesn't list it and news coverage is routine. William 16:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Unless more sourcing is forthcoming it looks like a fail under GNG. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've now added a reliable source in the form of Flight International - still not seeing it as a stand-alone incident. Plane flew on 3 engines across, landed before than ran out of fuel, FAA issued fine but caved in before reaching court. Possibly an example of how ICAO rules and National Aviation Authorities interact.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: There are several sources including one on ABC. This is quite a unique incident and deserves to be documented . Oddbodz (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Found an ABC.com [source from 2006 it says "The case was not isolated. The Wall Street Journal reported that a total of 15 British Airways 747s in the last five years have lost one engine and kept going to their destination" [[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. However, I still think we should keep the article because unlike the other instances, this on did not continue to its destinaton - it re-routed to Manchester. Oddbodz (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: In this incident the engine failed seconds after take off, not whilst cruising (where it is most likely that the other 15 engines failed). The loss of two engines on a 747 during take off can cause a crash (as happened in Schipol). In this case there was an engine fire and the flight crew would not have been sure of the condition of the wing or other engine. To then climb to cruising altitude and cross the Atlantic was an interesting decision and the fuel must have been at its limit to have diverted to Manchester. The same engine (no 2) on the same plane failed a few weeks previously. Please keep this interesting article and add more info if needed rather than delete it. BritAirman (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Whether the article is well written or not or memorable isn't the point.(Since banned editor Ryan Kirkpatrick wrote horrifically but accidents he wrote about still merited the article. It just had to be fixed up.) Is this incident encyclopedic? Does it meet WP:Aircrash criteria? Non fatal accident, BA has a history of jets flying without engine working, planes divert every week of the year if not every day. The aircraft was designed with sufficient backup to continue flying, and it did.  What is notable about this?- William 22:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - This might merit a mention on the British Airways page, but an article? No, not really, it (1) didn't suffer a hull loss, (2) didn't have anybody killed (or even injured), and (3) no procedures were changed as a result of the incident - stated straight from the horse's mouth. Fails WP:AIRCRASH on all three legs of the triad, and fails WP:GNG/WP:PERSISTENCE as well. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:AIRCRASH -- no fatalities, there wasn't a hull-loss, and no procedural changes. However, this incident is unusual (to me that is) regarding the crew's decision. Neverthelss, WP:AIRCRASH is the important guideline to follow -- if it's not met, I don't think the subject is worth writing an article about. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 11:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Remeber WP:IAR. If this article could improve Wikipedia we should ignore WP:AIRCRASH. Remember WP:AIRCRASH isn't official policy, Oddbodz (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You can say that about 50% other articles that go through this process. What it comes down to is whether it meets WP:AIRCRASH, which it doesn't and, to assess the subject's notability, the subject isn't that unique, as per ABC above, "The case was not isolated." Unless the article meets WP:AIRCRASH, or that it is substantially unusual in anyway, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 09:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Typical speedbird behaviour. One rule for us colonials, another for the masters of the air. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge into British Airways article. Notable enough to mention there due to the fallout. Not quite enough notability to justify a stand-alone article. Title should be a redirect. Mjroots (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep but needs to be rewritten encyclopedically, or Transwikied to Wikinews.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. fails WP:AIRCRASH. Moreover, it's another example of WP:RECENTISM. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep seems notable to me.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - The coverage was in-depth and extend for years. "Routine coverage" as WP:ROUTINE defines it is "Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs" which the coverage of this topic is way beyond the scope of.--Oakshade (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2012 (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.