Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Mediterranean Airways Flight 6711


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

British Mediterranean Airways Flight 6711

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Well-written article, but almost all primary sourcing. The one independent source appears to be about the same incident, but lists a different flight #KJ-7611, not sure if that is a typo, or an alternate flight #. Regardless, there is not enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete – Agree that the article is well written but the subject matter is hardly notable: a disaster that never happened, albeit narrowly, and without apparently lasting consequences. The safety recommendations were not even adopted, and there seem to be no sources subsequently referring to the event in relation to regulatory changes, lasting impact etc. --Deeday-UK (talk) 08:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Question - which are the primary sources used in the article? Mjroots (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , all but the one trade magazine piece.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest you have a re-read of WP:PRIMARY. The Air Accidents Investigation Branch are independent of any airline or regulatory authority (i.e. the CAA). The European Aviation Safety Agency are also independent of any airline. The Aviation Herald website, whilst a WP:SPS, has a reputation for accuracy, fact checking and editorial oversight, and is also independent of any airline. It is a very WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , The article is about an accident, not an airline.  Those investigative agencies are primary for accident/incidents. Never said AH was not an RS.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Scary, but no injuries or damage. No lasting coverage of this, just a safety inquiry.--  Chuka Chief talk 14:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment We're approaching the end of the latest 7-day extension of this AFD and while I reviewed the original nomination and did not find a reason to oppose this deletion nomination, I have just become aware of the recent edits by and would like to request a simple 24-hour extension to review the subject of the article.  Pretty please. RecycledPixels (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG.  An interesting read but the event does not appear to have been reported widely enough to satisfy the multiple reliable sources threshold, and I looked hard.   The Sécurité Aérienne source recently added appears to be an individual's blog, and does not meet WP:RS.   RecycledPixels (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.