Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle East Airlines Flight 304


 * 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 Metrojet Flight 9268. There is clear consensus to not keep the article. What little extra content there was I've added to the Metrojet article. I've also left a redirect just based on this event being noted in specialist industry sources. Seddon talk 22:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Middle East Airlines Flight 304

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable aviation incident. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep This aviation accident has a rather high value towards Metrojet Flight 9268. Readers may as well be interested in reading it. Username006 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep As per Username006, a merge would not be appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment It is wrong speculation (Speculation about causes happens after almost every disaster today. Go check this article for some of it surrounding something that happened about 60 miles from my home) after a disaster happens. Here is an example from a 2001 plane crash. That was the basis for a very wrong WP article that tried to blame a crash on cellphones when the accident report said no. The article even got good article status with this shameful disinformation and a lie about a separate investigation. This was a minor incident and the news media speculation was dead wrong. Why are we giving voice to it?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Further comment I say the whole thing connecting to Metrojet should be removed per WP:UNDUE which reads 'If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.' The accident reports on Metroject are quite clear why it crashed and this was I wrong above, wrong speculation by the media....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

This was not a minority. A major theory of the Metrojet crash was a possible way if the improper tail strike repair may have weakened the Airbus. It also did come on Mayday disasters in one short episode. In every documentary I have seen on Metrojet Flight 9268, they have mentioned this Left, Right and Center. The cellphone accident had nothing to do with another article and could easily be merged with Crossair Flight 498 as there was not much to say about. However, in the page of Flight 9268, I can't exactly see much information about the tailstrike accident. Here, as said by, you can't exactly merge the two topics together. The only way to give information is by creating a separate page. Username006 (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete – Whether a tail strike played any part in the later loss of the aircraft is a matter for the Metrojet Flight 9268 article, but a stand-alone article on what is essentially a non-event, from an encyclopedic point of view, does not make any sense. The Aircraft section − a big chunk of this article − is also largely a duplicate of the one in the Metrojet article. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I mean, it's the same aircraft. So isnt it expected to be similiar? Username006 (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: the FSB said they found traces of explosive, but that was never independently verified? Also the article says this (emphasis added): "In March 2020 an Egyptian appeals court ruled the crash was not an act of terrorism, and it dismissed lawsuits against government officials, Metrojet and Ingosstrakh." As far as I know, that is still the legal position. So if it was not caused by a bomb, what was it caused by?  Martinevans123 (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. The important elements of this incident are included in the Metrojet Flight 9268 article.   No notability for a stand-alone article about a very minor event that is unlikely to have had anything to do with the later crash of the aircraft.  (Note that the Metrojet article's statement that the Egyptian appeals court had ruled that the crash was not an act of terrorism is inaccurate.   The court actually said that the investigation into the crash wasn't complete, so it was not possible for the victims to sue the airliner for allowing a bomb aboard the aircraft, and that there was no official determination that the passengers on that aircraft had died until the report was complete.).   RecycledPixels (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Metrojet Flight 9268 Non-notable incident, and there is precedent on not having separate articles for tailstrike incidents on planes that eventually crash (Talk:Japan Airlines Flight 123). Jumpytoo Talk 21:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, a merge does not seem to work and there is little information about the tailstrike incident unlike the one in Japan Airlines Flight 123. That's why a separate page is required. There are exceptions to it. It would be rather appropriate if this is included separately. Username006 (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

".. there is precedent on not having separate articles." Not sure I understand that. There are some articles which are unique. It could be argued that all articles are unique. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Metrojet Flight 9268 per, and . This incident is only notable in the context of the Metrojet crash. It would barely even rate a single paragraph on page 6 of a typical newspaper otherwise. Carguychris (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is very little going on in this article and it is unlikely to be able to be expanded anymore than its current state.  It certainly currently does not meet WP:GNG, of the four references given two are simple descriptions of the incident, one seems irrelevant and the last is from a source not generally considered relaible.  There is nothing to suggest any continuing notability.  If, and it is a big if, there is interest in this incident because of the subsequent bombing (?) of the aircraft years later, then that detail can and should be dealt with in the later article. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Metrojet Flight 9268, from which it derives its scant glimmer of importance. Fails WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 00:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Redirecting doesn't make sense, because the target article (the Metrojet crash one) will not naturally contain any reference to Middle East Airlines Flight 304 (although it will of course mention the core information about that flight, i.e. the tail strike event). Given the paucity of sources about Flight 304, readers are very unlikely to have even heard about it, let alone search for it here, which makes the redirect pointless. --Deeday-UK (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment There was a conspiracy about Metrojet Flight 9268 as you can clearly see in the page itself. Not sure if we should keep it as it is not that notable but there isn't that much info about it on the Metrojet page either so that kind of evens it out. KlientNo.1 (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2021 (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.