Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of airline flights that required gliding


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric  07:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

List of airline flights that required gliding

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This list fails WP:NOTABILITY. No evidence of notability is provided in the article. This article has been around since 2011 yet Category:Lists of aviation accidents and incidents does not include any similar lists for hydraulic failures, pilot heart attacks, bits falling off, etc. etc. This article is an anomaly that should be deleted. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. This list seems to fall afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It seems to be the only list of its kind and not part of any series or pattern of similar lists, so seems to serve no organizing purpose on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and could be fixed by creating a series or pattern of similar lists. You have to start somewhere, and there is no deadline. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 20:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Speedy Keep. The nomination is using the flawed WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument for deletion. As for WP:N, here is a reference to establish notability for gliding planes. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * More accurately, I am saying that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not available as a counterargument. There is a difference. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see the difference. Neither WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS nor WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is a valid argument. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Changing my !vote to Speedy keep since nominator is acknowledging using an invalid argument. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No. My argument is very simple. I tried to set it in context a little, but I now realise that was politically unwise so I have struck that context. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So all that's left of your argument is notability. I have now added a second reference to the article in order to establish notability for this list. So go ahead and also strike out the part of your nomination saying that "No evidence of notability is provided in the article" because that is certainly no longer true. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, one online essay at Flight Deck Friend is not sufficient to establish notability. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added the link to the article. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, defining characteristic of at least some accidents like the Gimli Glider and the one when they had to fly upside down . Restrict to notable accidents please. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment there are already many categories in Category:Accidents and incidents involving airliners but no Category:airline flights that required gliding or similar. The list provides sortable date, model, description, fatalities and personnel, though.Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Mild keep – already exists, and its description explicitly mentions gliding as an inclusion criterion, so the list we're discussing does serve some purpose, although it requires some work: a) Strip all non-notable occurrences (such as 'flight engineer goes for a pee, all engines flame out, he comes back and all is good again'); b) Change the name to List of airliner accidents and incidents that involved gliding. EDIT: a corresponding category could be created as well. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I personally find the topic fascinating. Thus, in my view, the article contributes to the encyclopedia; does not detract from it. I had a look at wp:Stand-alone lists and didn't see anything that explicitly argues against or for this list in principle. Wikipedia is rife with stuff that really does need deletion; this article on the other hand is useful, though it will benefit from improved writing and references where needed. DonFB (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC) ... Add: title might be better as: "List of airline flights forced to glide." DonFB (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Comment as the original article creator: The initial source of this was a list of similar flights that was taken from Gimli Glider . Most of those articles then included links to other flights that involved gliding in the "See also" sections. It seemed to me to make sense to make a separate list article, so I crawled through articles and consolidated those links into this new standalone list. I considered making a category, but I thought a list would be better as it could include flights that did not yet have their own articles. (Note that Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by engine failure was created after this list.) — howcheng  {chat} 17:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep 1) The vast majority of incidents are themselves bluelinked, indicating that it is a list of notable incidents and thus deletion demands a higher bar than if it were indeed of trivial events. 2) This is NOT a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. "List of airline flights that had a red-headed pilot" would be, but gliding is an essential characteristic of fixed-wing aircraft, and so the list is a perfectly valid collection of incidents. Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Misconstrued argument for deletion: WP:N is not fully applicable to standalone lists which should use WP:STANDALONE instead. In particular, the list/collection does not have to have independent notability on its own. Instead, it has to have clearly cut inclusion/exclusion criteria, have a finite number of potential elements, and ideally most of its elements should have independent notability (i.e., articles on Wikipedia). This list satisfies this, and so can stay. 10:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC) -- added by user:Kashmiri
 * No, the misconstruction is yours. WP:STANDALONE says that WP:NOTABILITY does apply: "Being articles, stand-alone lists subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines.". &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the misconstruction is yours. Per WP:WikiProject Aviation/Notability, "List-class articles are exempt from notability requirements. Entries listed inherit notability from their own articles.". 96.41.32.39 (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Where an inconsistency exists between project guidelines and Wikipedia-wide guidelines, the Wikipedia guidelines take precedence. But thank you for pointing that out. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No contradiction. The notability of the list is taken from the articles. The flights are notable for gliding, making the list of flights that glided notable. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that highlights my point in bringing this to AfD. There is no evidence that the flights are, as you claim, notable for gliding and not for other reasons. I am not saying that claim is necessarily untrue, only that no evidence has been provided. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Your argument is so convoluted, I cannot follow it. The flights on the list are notable for having some sort of an incident (that's why there are either Wikipedia article for them, or they should have Wikipedia articles). All the incidents on the list involved gliding -- which in most cases saved some lives (many many lives), as opposed to falling out of the sky and crashing. Therefore, the list of flights that have glided gets its notability from the flights that are notable for having glided. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 07:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * thought about taking a read of First law of holes? — kashmiri  TALK  10:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a useful article. JMcC (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep It's highly unusual for airline flights to ever glide (thankfully), and incidents where this has occurred are well covered in reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It is very notable when ever a flight that is not ment to glide glides it is also highly informational!Jkd4855 (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete really a made up concept just to create an indiscriminate list, most of the entries dont actually involve gliding but engineless plummets. Aircraft that were glided like Gimli Glider are actually categorise as engine issues but we dont list accidents by all possible variations of skill required to survive. MilborneOne (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether or not a particular flight has glided and therefore not be listed should be taken on the article's talk page. It would not be a reason to delete the list. I do not agree with you that most entries are "engineless plummets". 96.41.32.39 (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2017 (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.