Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flybe Flight 7016


 * 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 per WP:NOT.  Sandstein  18:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Flybe Flight 7016

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable incident, and article misrepresents the events anyway. Article states 4 injured by fire, news story indicates four injuries. Injuries most likely caused by emergency evacuation (as happens all the time) and no indication there was any fire. Canterbury Tail  talk  14:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Weakest Keep But Sigh, this is one of those articles that sneaks up behind the notability guidelines and tries to mug it. I haven't done a web search but simply because it's a plane that had a problem I have absolutely no doubt that one could find coverage of the incident in reliable secondary sources (beyond the one already linked in the article).  Airline issues nearly always get at least a blurb in the news, no matter how small or insignificant, and technically that means that such issues immediately pass the whole "multiple non-trivial secondary sources" test.  Which is of course where the problem is, because this is plainly a non story.  A small plane had an air-conditioning problem so needed to land, and that's it.  The "But" in my depressed weak keep vote is to ask anyone if they know of any articles regarding minor aircraft-problems that this could be merged into.  While I believe it technically passes notability guidelines, it would be better served as one to two sentences in a larger article. -Markeer 15:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I'm sure newspaper coverage could be found, but this fails WP:NOT. JohnCD (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable or anything unusual, smoke or mist from the air conditioning and a few injuries from the escape slides not that uncommon event. MilborneOne (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete A perfect example of recentism. Smoke in the cabin!  Emergency landing!  Used the slides!  A mention in evacuation slide would be okay. Mandsford (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete A minor incident involving an aircraft diverting to a non-destination port, followed by a precautionary evacuation.  Almost a routine event somewhere in the world.  Article fails to establish notability.  Dolphin51 (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Tend to agree this is a minor event in avaition terms, and certainly one could not expect to have everty such event listed, since keeping track of them is a full time job. However, it is I believe possibly the first such event for the type, which has been used as justification for larger aircraft. Perhaps the best solution would be an entry in the page for the airliner itself, or a list type page of evacuations etc.? MadScot666 (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  15:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Once again, it happens too often to document them all. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- a very minor aviation incident, which I do not even think got on to the news. Utterly NN.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. NN incident. Precautionary action taken with minor injuries on evacuation per source. No evidence of long term significance. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2008 (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.