Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emirates Flight 407 (2nd nomination)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Emirates Flight 407
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Procedural renomination. The previous Afd was closed innappropriately by the nominator as 'withdrawn' (albeit after full term). Such Non-admin closures are not appropriate when valid keep and delete votes have been registered. MickMacNee (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Get admin to reclose 1st nom as Keep - Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, sourcing establishes notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - the accident led to a major investigation, and the dismissal of the crew. Operating and maintenance issues were raised as a result of the lengthy and thorough investigation into the accident. No deaths does not necessarily equate to no notability. Mjroots (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a few points for clarification, (but still not voting yet). 1. The crew resigned, they weren't dismissed. 2. The article mentions nothing about resulting changes in operations or maintenance. 3. While there is an (unreferenced) claim that this was serious enough to be classed as an accident (presumably rather than an incident), there is no evidence in the article that the investigation of it was any more serious, lengthy or thorough than you would expect for any other accident investigation. MickMacNee (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's resigning, and there's resigning. I thought the investigation had concluded, but it's still ongoing, nearly two years after the accident. That said, I contend that the notability of the accident has been firmly established. That the article could benifit from improvement is not a reason to delete it. Mjroots (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep this renomination was unnecessary since there was clear consensus in previous AfD to keep anyway. the incident clearly is notable and article adequately sourced.  The previous nominator had asserted that it was not notable enough.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There was evident consensus to keep this article in the first AfD; the article is well written and well sourced, and I am of the opinion that this is an accident notable enough to have an article. wacky  wace  19:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The event appears to fail two of the three WP:AIRCRASH points as follows:
 * The accident was fatal to humans? No. There weren't even any injuries.
 * The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport? No. Significant damage was inflicted to the aircraft, but the aircraft remained flyable - to the point that a ferry flight was made to the repair shop. I don't call that enough damage to pass this.
 * The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry? No. From the information in the article, this appears not to have been the case.
 * ...so, in closing, although this is a very intriguing incident, and it was a very dangerous one, it only just barely meets the standards by which aviation articles are judged to qualify for stand-alone articles. I'm all for WP:IAR when necessary, but I don't think it is in this case this is a notable enough incident to qualify for its own article vis-a-vis a mention on the A340's page. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 21:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sure had this accident (rather incident) occured in somewhere else than Australia, this article wouldn't have had a chance of being kept. It's also ironic how plane crashes in less represented countries, which have recieved notable coverage, have been attempted to AfDs and tried to be removed. In light of this, Emirates Flight 407 wasn't even a crash and just happened to be an event in a country where even incidents might be blown out of proportion by the media. As I pointed out in another AfD, read Wikipedia:Systematic bias. Mar4d (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as per user Mjroots. Elmao (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, Sources coverage seems to be consistent Rirunmot (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage of the incident in reliable and verifiable sources establishes notabilty. Alansohn (talk) 20:53, 2 December 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.