Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LOT Polish Airlines Flight 016


 * 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 (snowball closure). Kotniski (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

LOT Polish Airlines Flight 016

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The incident is not notable enough to be included in a stand alone article, as per WP:AIRLINE. It shouldn't even be mentioned in the airline's article. Jetstreamer (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, how do you reach that conclusion? Major news story here.--Kotniski (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, a belly landing of a large airliner is an extraordinarily rare type of incident. Plus, it's all over the media in Poland and abroad. Extraneus (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the guidelines before opining. You want the article to be included just because it had a wide media coverage. That's not a valid reason. It doesn't matter if the aircraft involved was a Cessna or an A380. There were no injuries, there were no changes to procedures, and the aircraft was not written off. How many people, aside from the occupants of the airliner, will remember this incident within a few months?--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've read them. The aircraft is seriously damaged and likely to be written off. As for changes to procedures, too early to tell. Extraneus (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment, for further discussion it would be good to know how frequently such event happened in the past (i.e. belly landing of a large airliner on land without injuries). --Kubanczyk (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. As you say, it doesn't matter if what's saved from flipping over or disintegrating is a Cessna or an A380. Makes me think of Malév Flight 262. — A. Kupicki (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The plane involved in Malev 262 was written off.--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Tupolevs were being phased out by Malév at that time...all of them. — A. Kupicki (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Emergency landings are notable. Just see numerous flights linked at emergency landing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 15:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as the aircraft involved results damaged beyond repair. Emergency landings occur all the time. Will you label an emergency landing due to the loss of a tyre or a medical emergency aboard a notable event?--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not us who decide what makes it notable - it's the media. I don't know how surprising this was to the experts, but the way it's been reported, it's the fact that no deaths or major destruction occurred that somehow made it more surprising and noteworthy.--Kotniski (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. "Miracle On The Hudson" was kept - yes, probably due to wide media coverage, but it is also a good reason - why not this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemmy Laffer (talk • contribs) 15:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Tons of media coverage both in the United States and Poland. Passes WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. --   Luke      (Talk)   15:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What about WP:NTEMP?--Jetstreamer (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You can compare this aircraft incident with US Airways Flight 1549. A belly landing for this type of aircraft is not a common occurrence, as is US Airways Flight 1549. That's why Malév Flight 262 and the Miracle on the Hudson were kept also. --   Luke      (Talk)   16:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

*Weak Delete So far all I see is WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:CRYSTAL here as we do not know for sure if this is a sure thing writeoff. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:AIRCRASH. The incident caused substantial damage to the aircraft and probably complete hull loss. Pburka (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Changing my opinion to Keep based on all the media coverage =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This event is a first of such kind of incidents in the world, where airplane remains in one piece after belly-landing (without wheels) with ZERO injured people! This confirmed today Mr. Chesley Sullenberger in his interview for CNN: event like that happened never before. Zboralski (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * TBH, this is not a first in aviation. A B747 belly-landed in Islamabad in 1986, and none of the 264 passengers or crew were injured. . I'd guess the reason it's not on WP is that the plane was eventually repaired and returned to service. Extraneus (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd guess that PIA Flight 300 doesn't have an article because it happened 25 years ago, and Wikipedia has a bias towards topics which occurred since its inception. I'll also hazard a guess that this wheels-up landing will have an article by the end of the week, now that you've pointed it out. Finding reliable sources from that time period will be a bit more difficult, of course. Pburka (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So we just have to wait and write an article as soon as an event occurs?--Jetstreamer (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean. But arguing that Wikipedia shouldn't have LOT Polish Airlines Flight 016 because it doesn't have PIA Flight 300 is just a variation of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Pburka (talk)
 * If this article is kept, the PIA's incident should have an article too, that's for sure.--Jetstreamer (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as notable as the US Airways landing in the Hudson River. If this is deleted then that article should be also deleted for just the same reason. Just because it isn't showed live for hours at a time on CNN doesn't mean it isn't notable. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Plus there are articles in PL:WP. FR:WP and IT:WP, so other people think it is notable. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want to make a general comment, but it is likely that any kind of event widely covered in the news has it reply as a new Wikipedia article almost immediately. I don't think this is the appropriate procedure, as we are not including other events as important as the one we are discussing here (PIA Flight 300 for instance).--Jetstreamer (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Full disclosure, I'm the one who wrote the French version, and I may very well be the only French speaker who thinks this is noteworthy. ;-) It does seem however that no deletions have been proposed on the other Wikis. Extraneus (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Absolutely notable. Airport blocked, one of a kind landing, worldwide media coverage, immediate articles on several different wikipedias. At the same time no valid reason to delete it. Lack of injuries makes an article not worthy ? Seriously ... --Lysytalk 19:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Not sure if there's anything else to add, but yes, clearly notable, worldwide news coverage, a fairly rare incident... so... if the belly landing had been a disaster and the thing would've blown up and bunch of people died then it would be notable? Weird logic.  Volunteer Marek   20:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly.--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So if you agree, then there is no reason to keep the article as marked for deletion anymore.


 * Keep, for now. Lets see what happens witht he hull. Maksdo (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This has been officially classified as accident, not incident, now. This is unique, because never before in Boeing 767 all wheels did not want to show up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.70.225 (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Historic rare occurrence and the only to involve a 767. Only one other occasion when a modern jetliner performed a belly landing  successfully on pavement was a 747 in 1986 in Pakistan.  It's particularly historic to Poland as very recently their president Lech Kaczyński was killed in the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash which is why such an amazing landing is garnering such accolades from the current Polish president and the press of this aviation case.  Obviously passes WP:GNG.  WP:AIRLINE is a project, not a notability guideline.  Even if somewhere buried in its pages is some inclusion criteria such as in WikiProject Airlines/page content (again, not a notability guideline), it's had an extremely low number of editors participating in its conclusions.  WP:CONSENSUS is very clear that overall project-wide consensus trumps limited consensus.  WP:CONSENSUS states, "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."  --Oakshade (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment A few things. A hull loss doesn't automatically make an incident notable. Take for instance the DC-9, of 131 hull losses there were 64 without fatalities. A cursory check of wikipedia articles shows exactly one of those crashes have an article. Between ASN and google news search someone could write articles on the other incidents. Do you feel that should be done or it would be overkill or do you just don't care about those incidents because many of them took place 30-40 years ago and you're only interested in recent history? Looking at the size of the templates for aviation incidents in 1971 and 2011 and checking the total of incidents there were according to Aviation Safety Network's databases, the evidence says recent history is preferred. 1971 had more incidents than 2011 but the articles for the latter outnumber the former 36 to 11. Whereas 1971 had over 200 incidents and 2011 hasn't reached 100 yet.


 * I don't understand why people keep connecting this crash and the recent tragedy involving the Polish President. Poland has quite a safe air history compared to many of its neighbors. There hasn't been a non-military related crash in the country resulting in 3 or more deaths in almost 25 years.


 * The news coverage in the United States involving this crash mostly consists of replaying the video. If 500 media outlets show the same thing, does that make the media coverage extensive or like some broken record?


 * Lastly, this Florida United States Wikipedian flew into Warsaw Airport without his luggage in 2000. KLM left this platinum elite Frequent Flyer's plus his silver elite FF wife's luggage behind in Amsterdam.- William 02:09, 3 November 2011 (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.