Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamic Airways Flight 405


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 02:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Dynamic Airways Flight 405

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable incident Petebutt(talk) 07:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Further to my nomination, the extent of this incidents notability is covered by this Dynamic Airways. There is no need for an article on a non-encyclopaedic event.--Petebutt (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —  San ska ri  Hangout 08:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Doesn't seem to raise to requirements of Notability (events). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete not really notable and not that unusual, wikipedia is not a newspaper. MilborneOne (talk) 09:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article should be re-written and expanded instead due to this being a current event. CNN and others have covered a lot about this. Notability (events). --User:Ruler1091&#124; reply here 10:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 09:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with user Ruler1091. It was a serious accident with numerous injuries. Deaths and total hull loss are not the only things that make an airliner accident notable. Thanks.Juneau Mike (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Actually, MilborneOne, it IS quite unusual for the passengers to all slide down the chutes while an airliner engine and wing are engulfed in flame while tens of gallons of fuel leak out. Marginal notability at this point; notability might or might not become clearer when investigations are complete. I do not see an established guideline for notability airliner accidents. There was serious damage to the 29 year old aircraft, though no statement has been made that the airframe is beyond repair. One serious injury and numerous hospitalizations. In  a Reuters story a former NTSB investigator said the NTSB "will try to determine the source of the fire and why it caused so much damage, and could recommend modifications to the 767 fleet and general airline procedures to prevent a recurrence," so there is at least the potential for the incident to have significant effects. It is certainly not a catastrophic airliner crash, but is more significant than lots of inflight incidents which get some press coverage but the articles about which get deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. We can revisit in a year or two and see if the incident satisfies WP:PERSISTENCE and gets more than the primary sourcing to news coverage it has now. Edison (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per above SOXROX (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as mentioned above, there was substantial fire damage, injuries and a full investigation. Not the most severe accident but British Airways Flight 2276 was never considered for deletion A340swazzen (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - substantial damage, possible writeoff, old plane...all make this notable, even if this does involve a past-generation P&W engine (here, a JT9D); there are still JT9D-powered 767s flying. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to Dynamic Airways as should most crash articles.Tough sailor ouch (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Keep change in opinion. Tough sailor ouch (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable. It may be a year or more before the various investigation are completed. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with the comment by Edison, who explains the issue well. The event is unusual because of the number of passengers who safely evacuated an aircraft that was on fire. At the same time, it is also too soon to determine the impact of this event. Per WP:RAPID, it's too soon to determine the lasting significance of the event; it should be revisited in a few months to allow its significance to be better realized. AHeneen (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can be revisited in a year or two if continued notability is not found, but for right now I think it meets the guidelines. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Just in case it leads to some notable reform in the FAA or something, which I highly doubt it will, but still, just in case. Antonio Michael Jason 'Hellraiser' Kruger Martin (aqui) 00;42, 1 November, 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. At a minimum, this is an engine-loss incident or engine-loss incident and wing-loss incident. This could be even a constructive hull-loss incident, but that is yet to be determined --2601:646:4201:26C0:6D40:9F4E:3856:24EB (talk) 03:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Too soon to address non-notability. We can wait.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 10:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment A disconnected fuel coupling does not an ecncyclop[aedia entry make!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Petebutt (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The airframe was damaged quite considerably and it is a very old airframe. At the very least we can wait for a bit to address notability, since this accident resulted in a rather large inconvenience for both the airline and the airport, not to mention there being one serious injury. Yny501 (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2015 (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.