Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Airways flight 2157


 * 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. Consensus is that the incident is not notable enough for a separate article. BritAirman, I'm sorry that this had to happen to your first article.  Sandstein  09:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

British Airways flight 2157

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The incident is not notable as per Aircrash. The accident was not fatal to humans. It did not involve serious damage. It did not result in a change of procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry JetBlast (talk) 02:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable WP:AIRCRASH. Did not cause a change in procedures, just rapped knuckles and enforcement of existing regs.Petebutt (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:AIRCRASH. Had the door actually hit the people, then it might just be possible to argue for a mention in the aircraft and airline articles. Bits fall off aircraft on an almost daily basis somewhere in the world. Ths incident is not worth mentioning. Mjroots (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete- Its not significant, there are more than 100 large plane crashes every year.--LarEvee (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and burn with fire. A part fell off the aircraft. Aircraft landed. Boeing is told to fix the part. This might be worth mentioning in the Boeing 777 article, but it fails the WP:AIRCRASH criterion for a stand-alone article - specifically, the meets-the-WP:GNG part - so hard they felt it back when Boeing was still building biplanes. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Thank you all for your helpful comments. I have clarified the article to explain that the change to airport engineering procedures qualifies for inclusion under the definition "...or incident invoked a change in procedures,..." per Aircrash. I have also added an image to explain the mechanism of the incident and another reference to a story in the national press about it.


 * To mjroots and LarEvee, I do not think there needs to be injury to people or a crash for it to warrant mentioning. For your information, I am not a pilot and have no connection to the airline industry. Something on TV made me remember this incident and I went to Wikipedia to look it up. I was surprised not to find anything (now I know why!) and since I was on Christmas leave, I decided to do some research into it and write my own first article for Wikipedia. I did look at the Aircrash criteria and the change in engineering procedures resulting from the incident and I thought this made it notable (I am sorry I did not make this clearer in the first draft). The article went live and was edited positively by two administrators, before a third change marked it for deletion. Now I understand the process more fully and I have modified the article - I believe it is greatly improved as a result.


 * I think the administrators do an excellent job, however, there is a danger that experts might 'over police' articles submitted. The article is about an incident that was covered by the BBC News and the mainstream national press. If it had not involved an aircraft it would probably never have been marked for deletion. However administrators who are also airline experts may have different views on what is 'notable' compared to most of the other 'lay' readers of Wikipedia who will look at things differently. There are plenty of in depth articles written by airline experts for airline experts on the internet already, but this is not what Wikipedia is all about. Details of the incident would have been exposed to millions of people through the BBC News and newspaper articles published at the time - clearly those editors felt it to be notable. Had it not been in the news I would never have heard about it myself! BritAirman (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * BritAirman, I agree that an incident does not have to be fatal to achieve notability - British Airways Flight 9, British Airways Flight 38 and China Airlines Flight 006 to name but three. This incident doesn't have that notability. Mjroots (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * All 3 of the articles you linked to, every aircraft received substantial damage. This isnt the case for flight 2157. --JetBlast (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't see sufficient sourcing to identify this as an independently notable incident and therefore justifying its own article - aside from the AIBB reports, there are only the contemporary news reports and a self-published website. Not enough to substanstiate the requirements of general notability (bearing in mind also WP:NOTNEWS) Secondly I don't think the previously developed consensus on what is required for a separate article (the WP:Aircrash guideline) is met - the recommendation of the investigation is essentially "think about these ways of organizing your maintenance procedures so it doesn't happen again". GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Graeme, for your helpful suggestions (and corrections to the page).
 * 1. I have removed the retired 777 Captain's self-published website reference.
 * 2. I have now located the follow up report from the CAA which was marked CLOSED in accordance with the classification given when an AIBB Safety Recommendation has been acted upon (see new reference). Since this was a recommended change in engineering maintenance procedures in relation to the access door, I believe this now provides sufficient proof for inclusion under the definition "...or incident invoked a change in procedures,..." per Aircrash.

BritAirman (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a recommendation and not a change in procedure, they are not the same thing. Because of this is does not meet Aircrash --JetBlast (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge to British Airways With two solid newspaper articles long after the incident, the topic passes WP:GNG, although it would likely fit well in the list of British Airways incidents.  Article seems to have been improved to correct some of the deficiencies previously cited, so as per guidelines, previous !votes become "irrelevant" that are based on the deficiencies now corrected.  This material is from reliable sources with more-than-insignificant information, it is neither WP:NOTNEWS nor WP:EVENT, and it is information that people want to know (as per WP:UCS and "we follow the sources").  Unscintillating (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge No fatalities, no hull loss, WP:NOTNEWS also seems to apply. A mention at BA or the airport article is the most it merits.= William 12:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear William,


 * Thank you for your input, please note though that I believe that the article qualifies for inclusion as an 'airline incident' see - Aircrash, by virtue of the fact that British Airways "changed its procedures" as a result of the subsequent AIBB enquiry into the incident. There are now several cited references to confirm that fact. I did not set these Wikepedia criteria and if editors disagree on whether this warrants inclusion for an airline incident article then that discussion should take place on the Aircrash inclusion criteria page. I believe these guidelines are set for newbies such as myself to follow when creating new articles.


 * The reference to the Air France Concorde crash enquiry verdict on the exact same day (also relating to loss of a metal panel from an aircraft on take off) explains why this BA incident got such huge coverage in the UK (I see though that you have deleted this reference). Since both items appeared on the same BBC News edition, I am sure the editors would have been aware of the significance. I would not be surprised if the French court decision to prosecute Continental Airlines may have influenced BA in deciding to change their panel fastening procedures! Anyway the news items are cited as "reliable sources" for information regarding the BA2157 incident and I am not proposing this as a WP:NOTNEWS item. BritAirman (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Airlines change procedures routinely after many incidents to prevent a repeat.
 * As for the Air France Concorde enquiry verdict causing the BA accident to get enhanced coverage, you're not improving the case to save this article. What you're saying is it is a coattail effect or in other words that if the enquiry hadn't come out the same day, the BA incident wouldn't have gotten as much press. Bottom line is- I don't buy the BA-Concorde connection at all. This is unless you had a reliable source stating the BA incident got more coverage because of the Concorde enquiry. Otherwise this is all WP:Original research or unsupported conjecture at best.- William 14:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, so you agree that it was a change in procedure! I note that you have marked 12 Wikipedia Airline Flight incidents and accidents for deletion over the last week, based on similar 'not significant' criteria. I have had a look through these and most are (in my view) interesting, well written and well referenced. As a lay reader I find it fascinating to read how commercial aircraft have landed on two wheels and I remember the JetBlue Airways Flight 292 from the news. Your most recent marking for deletion was British Airways Flight 268 which I also remember very well as it too got huge media coverage at the time and this is a route I have flown on! This interesting article describes how a BA 747 flew from LAX to UK on three engines and has sat in Wikipedia since 2009, but today, for some reason you decided that it had to go because it was not notable. Against this background of such heavy editorial policing by the Wikipedia airline experts, I agree, that the odds are not looking good for my article! However, before they don their Black Caps to pass final judgement on it, I still maintain that the article should remain on the basis of meeting the criterion of "change in policy" Aircrash and WP:GNG. I call on other editors to support my case! I am however somewhat stymied in that the only surviving link to my article was removed by JetBlast at the time of Marking for Deletion and so it is unlikely that any casual reader will find the page. Hence it may only be read only by those editors who have an interest in Articles for Deletion. Do you have any suggestions or is it a lost cause? Thanks again for your feedback! BritAirman (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You should become aware that deletion discussions because you disagree with them aren't to be made into personal attacks. I suggest you change your tone before I make a request for this WP:Wikiquette assistance.- William 18:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear William, My sincere apologies - it was certainly not meant to be personal. I simply tried to express my view that the opinion on whether or not a flight incident is 'notable' is very subjective, even for experienced Wikipedia editors. As I said, I do actually very much appreciate your feedback. BritAirman (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't want to become involved in this argument, but I'd just like to point out that notability requirements -- for commercial aviation accidents and incidents at least -- are pretty well organized and have been summarized both by the nominator and here. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 13:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have just noticed that my original "keep" request was removed from my first comment in defence of the article. Just in case this matters, I have reinstated it here. If the rules do not allow me to vote because it is my own article, then please let me know. Thank you! BritAirman (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed it as you alredy put "DO NOT DELETE", that is the same as keep. I assumed you duplicated this in error :-) - you have every right to vote :-) --JetBlast (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete not really notable even for a mention in BA or B777 article. MilborneOne (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - very minor incident, not really notable. - Ahunt (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Very KEEP - NOTABLE due to (1) almost death of pedestrians. (2) safety recommendations is changed for industry. (3) and huge jet landing heavy which is VERY uncommon event. --B767-500 (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Gsingh (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and other comments above. The incident has not proven to be notable, and the article has not adequately made a case for its notability thereof. Even the Aviation Safety Network (see here) doesn't include a record of this incident, which is saying something because their database seems to include anything that's even remotely notable. (Yes, I know that's not a valid measurement of notability; I'm just pointing it out for the record.) -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 13:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * 1. Thank you for your comments above. Please note though just for the record, that my article does meet the Aircrash criteria for inclusion by virtue of resulting in a 'change of airline/airport procedures'. So in your requests for deletion, I would be grateful if you could qualify your statements with the prefix, "Although this article does technically meet the Aircrash inclusion criteria by virtue of leading to a change in procedures, I nevertheless still think it should be deleted because...etc.."
 * 2. My request for keep has now been deleted or scored out by more senior editors three times. In the first instance it was at the end of the paragraph which started 'do not delete' and so I have removed this first quote in case this was cause for confusion, but since it was all signed by me I cannot see how anyone would have counted this entry as two votes. Senior editors should know better than to modify individual contributions on a talk page. If there is issue with protocol then please let me know and I will gladly correct my own talk myself! One delete request was followed up with a request for "burn with fire". I could not find this comment in the Wikipedia guidelines. Does it relate to book burning whereby a small group of individuals destroys knowledge written for the masses because it does not fit with their ideology?
 * 3. I have been doing more research into the incident and I have believe that it meets further notability criteria for being the only airline incident in which a structure has fallen off the aircraft and then reentered the pressurised cabin. I think the article is much improved as a result of these discussions and whatever the outcome, I have learnt a lot. The comments about its deletion are far longer than the actual article itself!
 * again It was a recommendation and not a forced change in procedure, they are not the same thing. Because of this is does not meet Wikipedia:Aircrash --JetBlast (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * no, here is the text copied and pasted from the Aircrash page: "The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry". A forced or stated as "invoked" change is only in the first section relating to Airports. If I am reading the wrong page then please let me know! If I am correct you may wish to change the reference in your nomination for deletion at the top of this page that started this process. Thanks, BritAirman (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding whether or not there was a change in procedure, here is what the article states, As reported in The Scotsman (Edinburgh) on 10 March 2005, the airline explained that it had made 'several changes to its maintenance systems and procedures' starting immediately after the failure. Further, the airline reported on 9 March 2005, "We note the one recommendation in the AAIB report, which we co-operated with."<_ref>"Plane's door comes off and lands 20ft from couple out for a walk" The Scotsman newspaper, Thursday 10 March 2005
 * Unscintillating (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Question - what level of compulsion is there with a AIBB recommendation? (for comparison when I am assessed against a certain international standard, there are mandatory and recommended actions. I can take the recommended actions and bin them if I want, but I have to carry out the mandatory ones. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Was this question addressed to me? If so, my previous post did not say anything about compulsion, it is a quote from the article that quotes the airline that procedures were changed.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear JetBlast - I forgot to thank you for taking the time to comment on my article. Indeed, without your initial request for deletion, it would never have been improved to such an extent as has been now. I am genuinely grateful to you for this in the spirit of Wikipedia. I have a question though - I chose at random two other editors who requested deletion of my article and looked at their talkback. I noticed, by chance, that you had personally informed both them of your desire to delete my article before they had even heard of it, or before they had made any comment. Shortly afterwards, both then added their request for deletion to this page (above). Could I ask if it possible for me to canvas votes to keep my article? My wife is a Wikipedia editor but I have told her not to vote to keep my article, because I believe it is against Wikipedia guidelines. I can think of at least 5 other editors whom I could also contact via talkback (as you have done) to canvas votes. Should I do this or is it against the spirit of Wikipedia? Please advise as I am new to this and value the advice of you and others who are expert senior editors. Many thanks, BritAirman (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Burn with fire" has zero to do with book burnings, and your comment implying association with it is not really appreciated. The keep !votes were struck because any bolded !vote is a !vote, and "do not delete" = "keep", therefore the "do not delete" was the keep. Also you are not allowed to WP:CANVASS. As for WP:AIRCRASH, once again I'll point out that articles meeting AIRCRASH criteria also have to meet the WP:GNG to have stand-alone articles - meeting WP:AIRCRASH =/= eligible for an article, which the essay itself says. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing further clarification relating to your comment "burn with fire" and for explaining the WP:CANVAS guidelines - I have taken note and no offence was meant. If we now agree that the article does meet WP:AIRCRASH notability, then we can move on to a discussion about general notability as per WP:GNG. I think it does meet this, as the event was covered in at least four national newspapers and the BBC News. Indeed in at least two countries, if you count Scotland as separate from England. Anyway, we are near to the 7 day deadline and I expect it will all be over soon. Thanks again for your input.BritAirman (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and thank you to everyone who has contributed to this discussion.BritAirman (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to British Airways, just not notable enough on its own.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: as non-notable per above. With as strong a consensus to Delete as has been exhibited above, BritAirman's filibustering notwithstanding, I'm curious as to why the discussion hasn't yet been closed.  Ravenswing  11:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Despite the well written prose, WP doesn't report on all emergency landings (WP:NOTNEWS). The investigation findings are not so remarkable either that it warrants inclusion in WP. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:55, 12 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.