Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FedEx Flight 630


 * 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. As an essay, arguments on AIRCRASH may appear to not have a policy grounding, but AIRCRASH's "The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry" is a clear nod to WP:LASTING at WP:EVENT, which is a guideline and is entirely applicable here, lending keep arguments based on changes to maintenance procedures, etc., additional weight. Similarly, while I am personally sympathetic to "sources should bei in the article", by policy, with limited exceptions, delete arguments must be based on sources which exist, not sources which are present within the article. j⚛e deckertalk 18:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

FedEx Flight 630

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD as "as this accident is considered serious by NTSB". Which is not the same as being notable in Wikipedia terms. This is an unremarkable incident, although a hull loss no casualties, article makes no claim to any notability. TheLongTone (talk) 11:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Not only was there a DC-10 hull loss which even the nom indicates, the NTSB issued modifications to DC-10 brakes and antiskid mechanisms and air filler valve bore inspection procedures. The PROD contesting was justified, especially to those who adhere to WP:AIRCRASH.  Also, why was this nominated for Speedy Deletion after only 21 minutes of the article's existence?  --Oakshade (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Even though no fatalities recorded, a major accident as the NTSB issued modification requests to be fitted to all the landing gear and brakes mechanisms of all the DC-10/MD-10/KC-10 aircraft flying affecting approximately 200 planes, all passenger, freighter, and refueller tankers. This accident required a full investigation and more than 15 recommendations were made meaning it is a major incident. Also, on the WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents page, there is a criteria for airlines accidents. The crash of Flight 630 meets all the criteria except human fatalities (eg. "The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry.", and "The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport") User:A340swazzen 10:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A340swazzen (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. - The article does not have any notable CONTENT asit does not mentionany aftermath / consequences!! When it does I might change my mind--Petebutt (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Per policy WP:DEL-CONTENT and WP:BEFORE, if an article can be improved through regular editing it should not be deleted. As per the policy, place a cleanup or expert-subject tag on it if your opinion is that "current content is not notable."--Oakshade (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The above does not address the basic problem of non-notability. The links in the articel refs that actually lead anywhere say nothing about design changes, merely a tightening of maintenance proceedure.TheLongTone (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactement!! The3 case for keep has yet to be made--Petebutt (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As WP:AFD and WP:BEFORE explains: "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." --Oakshade (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Non really relevant. The NTSB report does not back the claim that this is a ' serious incident' and states "The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable causes of the accident were 1) the first officer’s failure to properly apply crosswind landing techniques to align the airplane with the runway centerline and to properly arrest the airplane’s descent rate (flare) before the airplane touched down; and 2) the captain’s failure to adequately monitor the first officer’s performance and command or initiate corrective action during the final approach and landing". Hardly notable.TheLongTone (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Completely relevant. The NTSB ordering modifications to antiskid mechanisms and air filler valve bore inspection procedures most certainly indicates "resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes" as WP:AIRCRASH stipulates.  And a complete hull loss after a crash landing is definitely a serious incident.  Demanding the exact words "serious incident" in an NTSB report is just a made up red herring that has nothing to do with WP:GNG or WP:AIRCRASH.  --Oakshade (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a red herring at all. The article says that the NTSB decribes it as a serious incident and this is an uncited statement. They also do no, so far as I can tell, say anything about this accident leading to design mods. Cites, please. The cite you give above does not explicitly link this incident to any design changes in the brakes.TheLongTone (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Goes back to the original point. Per policy WP:DEL-CONTENT and WP:BEFORE, if an article can be changed by regular editing like a claim of a phrase affectation, then regular editing is in order, not deletion.  I removed the offending sentence for you.  My !vote stands.--Oakshade (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 08:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Oakshade and A340swazzen and the content at the end of the NTSB report detailing the response to this incident. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:GNG, covered by the sources cited in the article and by others: and  and the NTSB, as noted above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete no indication in the article that this is notable enough for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As WP:AFD and WP:BEFORE state: "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." --Oakshade (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2014 (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.