Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean Air Flight 2708 (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 no consensus. I could also have described this as "keep", but it's clear that this article isn't getting deleted. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Korean Air Flight 2708
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable aviation incident. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete nothing I can see make this particularly noteworthy for inclusion in Wikipedia, nobody killed, it didnt hit anything important and the aircraft was repairable. MilborneOne (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Easy Keep. Per WP:GNG and also WP:AIRCRASH (the incident involved serious damage to the aircraft). 12 injured and lots of coverage, the latest from this year. Easy keep, what is the nom thinking? You need to do more than just say "not notable" when there's coverage from reliable sources already cited in the article. FOARP (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Serious damage to the aircraft - are you sure the report calls it "Slightly Damaged", other than an engine change some penetrating marks on the left wing flaps, most of the coverage are news reports which would be expected but doesnt indicate any long term notability. The injuries were not serious some were just scratces and bruises. Clearly not an "easy" keep. MilborneOne (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * An engine fire is pretty obviously serious damage. Can the plane fly with it? No. Serious? yes. Plus we have sustained coverage over two years, serious findings of wrong-doing etc. FOARP (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Leaning keep per WP:EVENT and the Asahi Shimbun article from 2018 cited in the article. I don't have strong feelings on whether the ongoing coverage is sufficiently substantial, but I certainly would not have considered nominating the article for deletion had I simply happened upon it. Dekimasu よ! 20:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Since there were no fatalities and (apparently) no significant process/procedure changes as a result of the incident, it all comes down to whether the damage to the aircraft was serious or not. I lean towards keep, because an engine fire seems pretty serious to me, even though this one wasn't as bad because of the timing of the incident (caught before takeoff rather than after). PohranicniStraze (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether it qualifies as a significant process/procedure change, bu the FAA did issue an airwothiness directive as a result of the accident requesting inspection of turbofans of the same model as that in which the fire occurred, see p. 56 of the JTSB report. FOARP (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The document you posted also has some other actions that could point towards a Keep result - on pg. 57, it is mentioned that the engine manufacturer made changes to their manufacturing and inspection process, and the airline made some noticeable changes to their evacuation diagrams and procedures. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Barely newsworthy and no lasting impact on regulation.Charles (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Barely newsworthy", but covered by news reports over a period of years? FOARP (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete for failing AIRCRASH. A blip of news just after the accident and then one article when the final report came out a couple of years later don't constitute significant coverage. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Also consider deleting the similar Singapore Airlines Flight 368. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Engine fire, minor injuries during deplaning. Doesn't pass the WP:AIRCRASH essay. Coverage seems to be limited to around the event itself and (much less) around the investigation report - so not WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Icewhiz (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Coverage two years after the event isn't continued coverage? An engine fire isn't significant damage? FOARP (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Engine fires are routine aviation incidents (though usually in flight, not during takeoff) - e.g. the Australian regulator had some 40 (IFSD + engine failures) events in 2008-2002. (number used to be much higher - was curious what the modern incidence rate was). If the sole followup reporting is the obligatory air safety investigation report (and not much reporting thereof) - it is not continuing coverage in my mind. If you had this incident mentioned along side other incidents, or other coverage - I would be possibly swayed.Icewhiz (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

*Delete — Coverage is too inconsistent to be considered continued. The engine fire is indeed minor in comparison to notable incidents and the injuries not too serious (thankfully). Perhaps some future evaluation/reflection beyond the routine investigative work will be made, establishing a claim of notability. But as of now, that is not the case.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC) Editor has been blocked INDEF. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I don't see how this is different from British Airways Flight 2276 other than in the availabilty of English-language sources. Deletion will only increase systemic bias. Continued coverage includes the investigation and crew awards. --Pontificalibus 08:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The relevant essay says "The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport; or The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry." We could argue about whether it was serious damage or not, but "the FAA issued an Airworthiness Directive mandating inspection of engines of the type involved in the fire" means that there was a change to regulations resulting from the accident. (I also see that this accident is mentioned as an example of what could be prevented if there was prognostics and health management .) RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Requiring inspections of similar engines after an incident does not look like a change in regulation, only an enforcement of it.Charles (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete I do not see significant coverage at all. Trillfendi (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep satisfies WP:GNG, WP:AIRCRASH, WP:GEOSCOPE.-- PATH SLOPU (Talk) 02:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Pontificalibus. The event received ongoing coverage thanks to those news sources. I would say notability is a borderline call. SportingFlyer  talk  08:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep plenty of other articles on similar incidents are kept by the Wiki, and this particular incident has been used in some of the said articles as a point of discussion.--BrayLockBoy (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Somebody messed up but nobody killed, it did not hit anything important and the aircraft was repairable. The Banner  talk 00:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems fairly routine coverage and not a significant incident. Reywas92Talk 01:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not only does it pass WP:GNG, but when the FAA mandate as a result of this incident, it also passes WP:AIRCRASH. Oakshade (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep topic is clearly notable and it's vital for Korean economyMgbo120 (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:AIRCRASH and WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I find the incident, while not major, not routine either. There was enough damage, evacuation via slides, 12 hospitalized, to just make it. MB 01:55, 18 January 2019 (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.