Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Airlines Flight 1726


 * 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   delete. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Northwest Airlines Flight 1726

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a one time event that really isn't all that notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree. This one isn't sufficiently notable as an event. If we kept a record of every bruised head on here, no one would be able to find the really notable accidents. Passportguy (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - the article doesn't even give a date or place for this minor incident. . .Rcawsey (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not very notable and this Milwaukee to Detroit to Buffalo flight is still being flown. The incident happened on Jan. 21, 2007 in Milwaukee. Loves  Macs  (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Minor event. Wikipedia is not a directory of every time a plane skids. The article exagerates the news coverage from 2007 from the facts stated in the news story, changing a "blown engine" or "engine failure" to an "exploded engine" and "one person reporting a sore back" to "a back injury," when the news story does not report anyone was hospitalized. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would actually interpret "blown engine" to mean "uncontained engine failure", which is technically an explosion (although not normally of the flames and smoke variety). It is a bit ambiguous though; I wouldn't draw any real conclusions for actual use in an article. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:AIRCRASH Mjroots (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of plane crashes. This has been suggested here. Sebwite (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no such list; that title redirects. There is a List of accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft, but this articles fails List of accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:AIRCRASH. Thryduulf (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:AIRCRASH. A very minor event, nothing unusual or likely to result in procedural changes. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per a number of the above points.Tyrenon (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, notability simply isn't there as it was a minor incident. Tavix | Talk  18:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to General Mitchell International Airport. There's a pattern of overruns there, the runways need runout zones (now planned), as discussed at a ref I just added.LeadSongDog come howl  22:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to General Mitchell International Airport and possibly add to a list also. I don't think this even needed an AfD, I would recommend withdrawing the nomination and boldly merging the page, with perhaps a warning that could sit there for a week if you really wanted.  It seems there's a very clear consensus that this topic doesn't warrant a page of its own, but it surely warrants mention somewhere and a redirect will probably be useful as well.  Cazort (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Response: I won't withdraw the nomination. I did that recently on another nomination, but this one is clearly not notable on its own. The info can easily be added to another article without a redirect. Do you really suppose it is that common that people look up a specific flight number of a mishap that didn't even have serious injuries? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I transfered all the information into General Mitchell International Airport with a anchor tag, so when a merge and targeted redirect is made with this title, it'll redirect straight to that section of the article. Even though the majority here are deletes, I feel it is better to merge/redirect, because the information, is there, and there is some guideline for inclusion of the material, just not in a standalone article. Sebwite (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment following the merge and redirect suggestions above I've looked at both articles again and I stand by my "delete" vote - i.e. I do not support a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 08:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have to agree with others here and oppose a redirect or inclsuon of the info on another page. This flight is not notable. There are litterally thousands of minor incidents each year and if we include all of them even pages will end up getting cluttered. Just today there was another incident of this magnitude and that equally does not deserve a mention. Wikipedia is not a newssource - and that goes eually for seperate pages and for content in articles. Passportguy (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Take a look at this page and see just how many such minor incidents there are. Note that the more seroius entries are all apdates on other events, but the minor ones listed do not get updates and instead they are all one-report-only items. I too stand by my view favouring deletion. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am unsure why that smokey little electrical fire is listed as an accident and not an incident Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:24, 10 June 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.