Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lufthansa Flight 288


 * 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   redirect to Contact Air. — Jake   Wartenberg  17:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Lufthansa Flight 288
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This could be merged into Contact Air (which was done already, actually). This aviation accident did not result in any injuries, maybe not even the plane is beyond repair. I don't think this is worth having an entry of its own, it's just not important enough. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Minor news event, and I do mean minor. One time I drove my car over a pothole and blew out two tires, and that didn't get a WP article.Borock (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it, and it will be called "1998 Hoboken pothole incident". As to this one, delete -- nothing that merits an article.  It sometimes happens that the landing gear doesn't deploy.  Mandsford (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral A commercial airliner doing a belly landing is far more serious then blowing out a couple of tires in a car, but overall, this article is not especially notable. Googlemeister (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I could have been killed too. Anyway many more people die in car accidents than plane.Borock (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It really has no significance whatsoever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.163.46.3 (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Contact Air, as a reasonable search term, essentially per WP:NOTNEWS. It's already mostly out of the news, and it's quite enough to have it as an incident in Contact Air and, possibly, Franz Müntefering. Amalthea  22:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: You know, the deletionists are getting too strong in the English Wikipedia. I think the article should be kept. The incident seems pretty notable to me regardless what an editor not in the plane thinks. Why do you always need over 100 dead people to make an incident notable anyway?Thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I look at it more as trying to rein in WP:AIRCRASH, an essay written ins such away that it indirectly includes almost every accident that ever happened on a scheduled flight. No other project that I know of-- athletes, TV episodes, elections -- casts such a broad net over what should be kept.  If we had a similar guideline for every time a crime was committed (i.e., there was an investigation; a famous person was there; there were calls for reform; etc.) we'd be filled with articles about muggings.  So it meets WP:AIRCRASH, big deal.  Geez, is there anything that doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH?  It's too ridiculous to be considered a guideline.  Mandsford (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:AIRCRASH as German Social Democrat Party leader Franz Müntefering was on board per BBC News source. It also appears to be the worst accident suffered by Contact Air to date. Mjroots (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think the incident was important enough to mention in Mr. Muntefering's own article? If not why is it that important for the rest of us?Borock (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep (for now anyway). I't not especially notable, but let's at least wait and see if the aircraft is written off. It was carrying a notable person and it may also be the most serious incident to date for the airline. Too often people are too quick to delete. 84.9.39.16 (talk) 07:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A bit off-topic, but look here. Redirect or delete? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Contact Air Flight LH 288. If this article is deleted there are many others which can also fall.--Cyber Fox (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See talk page of tge Lufthansa Flight 288 article, I've already noted that it should be at the Contact Air Flight 288 title, but it is bad form to move while AfD debate is running. Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've redirected Contact air flight 288 to Lufthansa Flight 288 for now, since the one under discussion has more content. The rest should be hammered out at the talk page, I agree. Amalthea  10:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect add the words "due to undercarriage failure" to the section at Contact Air (which I'm about to do) and that article says everything that needs to be said about this non-notable incident. It is worth noting that the current WP:AIRCRASH criteria are likely to be replaced shortly with the new, more strict, criteria at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Notability. Your input into the discussion would be welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 09:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf, the accident would still rate as a Level 3 accident on the new scale as the worst suffered by Contact Air at the time it occurred. So why the Delete? Mjroots (talk) 10:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because that is the only criteria it matches, a merger to the Contact Air article is more appropriate than a stand-alone article. However there is nothing to merge as all the details are already in the target article. The notable person wasn't significantly involved (he was just a passenger), there were no (significant) injuries, and there are unlikely to be any long-term effects for the airport or aviation in general. If there are any for the airline then they are best covered on the airline's article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per the sources found above and the Social Democratic Party leader on board. Plus, as with such crashes involving a landing gear failures and the number of Fokker 100's currently in service (estimated to be about 100), this will no doubt prompt intense investigation and affect safety and maintenance regulations for years to come.--Oakshade (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Until any such investigations and/or changes to safety and maintenance regulations actually happen the majority of your comment is just crystal ballism. Also, the verifiability of the article has never been in question, and what part did the SDP Chairman actually play in the incident? Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's only willful ignorance to believe no such investigations will take place. It's German Luftfahrt-Bundesamt law anyway that all accidents must be investigated. --Oakshade (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because an investigation takes place doesn't mean it (the investigation) is notable, that it makes the incident notable, or that its findings will be significant. Doubly so if there is an investigation after every incident. Thryduulf (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTE The very significantly revised WP:AIRCRASH guidelines are now live per consensus on the talk page. References to the guidelines prior to 11:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC) likely refer to the previous version. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to Contact Air Flight 288, failing that redirect and merge into Contact Air. The keep reasons as per posters above seem pretty convincing. --Sb617  08:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:N in that it is a news event that is not worthy of notice. -Atmoz (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Thryduulf and the new proposed criteria. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete technically it does meet the criteria set in WP:AIRCRASH,as there's a notable person on board and it's likely gonna be the most serious accident for Contact Air to the date. However, this event itself doesn't seem to be that notable, as the notable person is not injured nor killed in the accident to my knowledge(thus not worth mentioning in his biography article as well). I think this accident is worth a section(Accidents and Incidents) in the article about Contact Air, but not a separate article. Considering WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, not a guideline, I'd say delete for this. Blodance (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Contact Air per Thryduulf (above). He/she proposed some Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Notability to WP:AIRCRASH that would allow information to be preserved in an appropriate location, whether by name of the airline, or the type of accident, or the major personage involved.  I despise the "anything goes" essay that is called WP:AIRCRASH.  It excludes nothing, and only encourages the recentism that characterizes a lot of articles (i.e., it's notable if it was on CNN today; hey, I want to be the very first person to write about this).  The essay is generally invoked to stifle debate over legitimate questions about whether something meets WP:N.  Similar to articles that are entitled "2009 ____ incident", the airline incidents are called "(name of airline) Flight (number)".  If an Eastern Airlines had had a belly-flop landing in 1962, I don't think anybody would write an article about it.  There is nothing historically significant about this incident that merits its own article.  Mandsford (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:AIRCRASH and non-local newscoverage. Agathoclea (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria in the newly revised WP:AIRCRASH guidelines. The politician onboard wasn't "significantly involved" in this minor incident. B.Rossow talk contr 19:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable New seeker (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Complete lack of notability. Safety issues are minimal, the cause of the u/c malfunction is either already known to the airworthiness authorities or is inconsequential (unlikely to happen again)Petebutt (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Question - Due to the complete revision of WP:AIRCRASH, is this being treated as a completely new AfD discussion, or do earlier opinions expressed still count? Would it be better to do a procedural "no consensus" close and immediately open a new AfD for this, with all parties who participated in the above debate notified? Mjroots (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say the closing admin can sort it out, and based on new opinions following the relist, and assuming that you don't find it more likely that it is kept based on the change to WP:AIRCRASH, I don't see a need to notify people. Amalthea  16:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is a concern that the new WP:AIRCRASH makes it more likely to be kept, there is an opposite concern that the new WP:AIRCRASH makes it more likely to be deleted. Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm? It was my understanding that the new one is more restrictive, in particular with this case. Wrong? Amalthea  17:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note that myself and two other editors referenced the new version (then the draft version) in our comments. Thryduulf (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As it was then a draft version, those comments should have no bearing on the decision. I quoted according to what was the established WP:AIRCRASH at the time it was quoted, which is the one that should be taken into account for my comments. Comments posted after the new version went live should be taken note of according to the current WP:AIRCRASH. You see how this is getting messy and why it might be better to scrap this AfD, start a new one and notify all editors involved (I'm prepared to do this last bit if it will help). Mjroots (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well actually, the notability guidelines set up by a WikiProject don't necessarily represent consensus. They might, but since a WikiPoject tends to consist of people especially interested in a topic, their standards are sometimes different than what the wider community would think. If people quote such a project guideline, I'm guessing they are either agreeing with it or abiding by the WikiProject standards. In particular, WP:AIRCRASH is neither binding nor necessarily pre- or descriptive, and everyone who commented before the break and mentioned it was aware of the discussed revisement anyway. Again, I would let the closing admin sort it out. If they think a restart is best, they have my blessing, but in my opinion it's not necessary. Amalthea  17:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and redirect-and fix-just because then we'd have to delete hundred other air crash related articles. And also, this made the news so it is notable! Antonio Kim Possible's Fantasy Martin dime aqui! 10:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not deny that the accident is notable. But an article of its own does not make sense to me. The important piece of information is already included in Contact Air. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I quote from Notability: "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability ... Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage." So just because something made the news does not necessarily mean it is notable. The incident happened on 14 September, on 15 September of the 12 news reports known to google, there were just 5 independent English results (including duplicates and German articles there were 12). On 16 September there was only one relevant news article mentioning it, between 17 September and today there have been no relevant news reports . I think that's a very good example of something that was only very temporarily newsworthy and so not notable at all. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In anything up to 2 years time, a report will be published into the accident which will give the "continued coverage". The problem is, if the article is deleted now, it makes it a lot harder to recreate it once the report is out. Mjroots (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles can be undeleted at any time (see Deletion review). Basing the notability of an article on the existence and/or content of a report that has not yet been released (and may not be for another 2 years) and even then may or may not say anything notable, is WP:CRYSTAL at its finest. Anyway, I disagree that two separate bursts of news reporting separated by up to two years (assuming that there is any news reporting about the report - it's not guaranteed) constitutes continuing coverage. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That same criteria was the one used to delete Milivi Adams, even through she has a street named after her, she has a school named after her, her photo is on every corner in Vieques, and she made the Puerto Rican newspaper many times. When she was deleted 4 years after her death, there was only a few mentions left. That same criteria was used by the user who tried to delete Charlie Zaa. It may not be notable to you but it sure is to many others! Besides, my vote will stay at keep anyways. Antonio Your wife's man Martin dime aqui! 08:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Contact Air "This could be merged into Contact Air (which was done already, actually)" and per WP:MAD, if not kept. To delete this would be to disrespect the GFDL, and if we don't respect it, how can we expect anyone else to? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 26 September 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.