Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pantanal Linhas Aéreas Flight 4763


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. bd2412 T 17:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Pantanal Linhas Aéreas Flight 4763

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable runway excursion with no injuries to speak of. runway excursions happen all the time are non-notable in themselves. The fact that the aircraft is an insurance write-off is not notable either. As the article states this is the 18th hull loss of an ATR, what makes this so notable to require an article?. Generally WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS Petebutt (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This appears to be very closely related to TAM Airlines Flight 3054 - a fatal accident at the same airport, due to the same cause (i.e. aquaplaning on a part refurbished runway) the next day. As such Keep, as this appears to be part of a pattern of accidents and near misses at the airport.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete the incident, on its own, is not independently notable. The of the four sources presented, three are directories and one is the government-issued incident report. No accompanying news coverage. Since it may be related to the TAM flight the next day, some of the information may be merged to that article if it is mentioned in sources describing or contemporaneous with the TAM crash (to avoid WP:SYNTH issues.) SportingFlyer  T · C  10:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with above. Not notable enough for a stand alone article. - Samf4u (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm not finding any lasting coverage (or even significant coverage in multiple sources from 2007): the only Google search results comprise a small handful of sources describing the coverage immediately after the incident (in 2007) or Wikipedia mirror sites. This isn't notable enough for a standalone article, but it could be worth mentioning in the article about the TAM crash if that can be sourced. ComplexRational (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete nothing in the article indicates that it is noteworthy for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete – per SportingFlyer. This incident is only relevant in the context of the much more serious TAM crash the following day, assuming the underlying cause or causes are related. If so, a mention in a Background section on the TAM crash article would be appropriate. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, no significant coverage of the topic in particular, as far as I'm aware from other comments. Utopes (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - just not notable, fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. - Ahunt (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2019 (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.