Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cathay Pacific Flight 256


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 04:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Cathay Pacific Flight 256

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested PROD - Fails to be notable, aircraft takes of, does not presurise, aircraft lands, fix the problem. Nobody hurt. MilborneOne (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete a very clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS. This kind of incident happens time and again. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Minor incident unlikely to be of lasting interest or consequence. Pburka (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per this user request. Non-notable unless and until proven otherwise. Mjroots (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 18:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Gosh, someone took some care referencing and building this non-notable article. Has anyone thought of schooling this editor, with the aim of teaching them notability and encouraging them to stick with WP? At any rate, I must vote DELETE.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete A well-written article, by a new contributor, about a non-notable event.  I encourage him/her and other people to throw away the crutch of writing about recent news, and use tools like this to write about airplane accidents that didn't happen in years beginning with a 2.   Mandsford 19:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * News is still news, even if you are looking it up from the archive. MickMacNee (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the point I was trying to make, although I can see that I could have been more clear. My point is that there were plenty of historic and notable airline crashes that happened back in the 20th century for which we don't have articles, and, because of recentism, way too many articles on non-notable events because it's easier to copy off of the news sites.  We have a lot of good writers, and I'd rather their interests be focused on notable events from the past.  I actually agree with your efforts to delete articles of the "this just in, jet makes emergency landing" variety.  A good test for historical significance is "if this had happened in 1990, would people be talking about it now?"  Mandsford 23:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:AIRCRASH. JohnCD (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS  WackyWace  converse 19:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete wow, an article for a flight that nobody died from; fails WP:NOTNEWS— Chris! c / t 20:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - completely non-notable incident, equivalent in notability to a car owner locking their keys in their car on a Saturday afternoon. - Ahunt (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although it is early to tell, this incident does not appear to have lasting significance. The lack of mainstream press coverage also indicates insufficient notability. --memset (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Completely and utterly fails Wp:NOTNEWS. The lack of news reports about this just goes to show how much of a non-story this is. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) &#124; (talk to me) &#124; (What I've done)  23:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is about an everyday occurrence within the aviation world, in that it is a very commonplace occurrence. As Mjroots points out, the article creator himself supported the PROD; I am amazed that an established editor actually removed the PROD tag, this would have to be the most clear-cut of recent aviation incident articles to not warrant an article. YSSYguy (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't read any bad faith in User:YSSYguy's comment, more surprise than than anything. User:Lugnuts: Perhaps you can add some information on why you thought this was worth sending to AfD instead of letting the Prod go though, as per your edit summary removing the Prod tag. - Ahunt (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right - prehaps I could.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as Wikipedia is not the news. There is no evidence of lasting impact and there are no deaths or fatalities. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  01:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Ferengi (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per all others. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete wow, how many votes.  Kubek15  write / sign 17:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as Wikipedia is not the news. ( G a b i n h o >:) 12:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC))
 * Delete fails WP:N. minor incident--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2010 (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.