Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japan Airlines Flight 472 (1972)


 * 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) 10:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Japan Airlines Flight 472 (1972)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Emergency landing by a jetliner. Although traumatic, it's not notable. I could spend some time and try to pull up the stats on how often this happens but it's really a waste of time. This happens with some frequency, none of it's notable,a lthough it might be reported on. But as we always say, notability isn't just a mention, it has to be demonstrated by reliable sources. Shadowjams (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Shadowjams (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment from creator This is a translation work, and not yet done, so wouldn't it be a bit too early for AfD nomination? I'm now working and don't have as much time as I used to do. The ja.wp article does have refs, just that it will take me much longer than half an afternoon to translate all of them...Blodance (talk) 09:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but it if no further edits will be made, then delete it. Armbrust (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not too early. You've got at least 7 days, and even if it's deleted you can recreate. Plus, if there's even the most slim suggestion of an article here, it'll be kept. If you have content to add then do so. I'll change my opinion quickly in that case. Shadowjams (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Believe me dude, if you created a new article and after like 3 or 4 hours found it AfDed, you would have the same feeling, "Why so early?"... Indeed, I didn't check into its notability, as this is a translation work. Gotta run for dinner now. Blodance (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Believe me dude, I have. I understand the feeling. But on the flipside I think that notability criteria are important. It's what separates wiki from a simple google search. I'm not new. I'm open to arguments, but I don't see anything indicating this particular incident is especially notable. I may be wrong, and if I am, I'll change my !vote. Shadowjams (talk) 10:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, sorry about not thoroughly checking the subject, I simply saw the article(as one of a series of accidents JAL suffered within a single year) when I was translating another one, and thought that if this one deserves an article(survived 2+ years w/o objection) on ja.wp, it might deserve one on en.wp as well. I'm not very sure if an accident that is a)a hull loss b)an accident(the most notable of the type) leading to a change in safety measures c)one of a few accidents that shared a (exactly the same) flight number with other ill-fated flights d)has coverage in ISBN 4101249067 & Asahi News would establish notability. If not, I've no objection in deleting it. Blodance (talk) 10:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll take another look soon at some non-english sources, when i get a chance. If you find anything good please post it here. Shadowjams (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep This accident is sufficiently notable, it resulted in the write-off of an airliner, circumstances also of some note. Allow the creator time to expand it. Mjroots (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The name for this type of accident is a runway overrun, which is currently a redirect rather than a separate article. There are different reasons for this type of accident, such as taking off from the wrong runway Comair Flight 191, landing on the wrong runway, or equipment failure or pilot error on the correct runway.  I would rather the author be given time to complete the translation, but I think that, eventually, it should be part of a larger article about short runway overruns. Mandsford (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification: It's not that unusual for aircraft to land at the wrong airport. However, in the vast majority of cases the aircraft is undamaged, not written off. Mjroots (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should keep itit shows what had happened in the past and that's why we should keep it.AiviationP. (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Commment We really should be waiting longer than 17hours after an articles creation before nominating for AfD Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think 17 hours is too early. That's nearly a full day, at least one editing session, and they've now got at least 7 days to improve it. How is that not enough time? The reason I nomed it when I did was because it was on the new page list. Besides, the notability of the incident won't change in the course of a few more days. This isn't an issue of underdevelopment. Shadowjams (talk) 21:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly a notable incident. The worst that should have happened was an unref tag. You should see some of the crap that comes through the new article filter that doesn' get deleted! Maybe the time spent setting up the AfD could have been invested in helping with the article?  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep commercial airliner was written off in unusual circumstances, article needs more work but that is not a reason to delete. MilborneOne (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Could do with a copyedit and more horough referencing, but I consider it notable. Wexcan Talk  08:40, 31 December 2009 (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.