Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippine Airlines Flight 421


 * 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   merge to List of accidents and incidents involving the Douglas DC-8. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Philippine Airlines Flight 421

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Hull loss but without fatalities. Not Notable per WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS William 18:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  - William 18:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions.  - William 18:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  - William 18:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 *  Keep  - WP:AIRCRASH is pretty confusing, as it has different sections, one of which has the list of bullet points ANDed together, the next one, which I believe applies here, has the same bullet points ORed together like this: "For airline and large civil aircraft, a listing of notable aircraft incidents and accidents, where appropriate. Accidents or incidents should only be included in aircraft articles if:
 * The accident was fatal to humans; or
 * The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport; or ...."
 * and since there was hull loss on an airline's airliner, this is by definition notable (as reason would dictate). Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Mmm, I think AIRCRASH has quite a lot to answer for. Reading it again with all your comments, I think what it's trying to say is that hull losses are likely notable enough for a mention in an aircraft type article (at least a list or count of such crashes, with places and dates), but more is needed for a single-crash article. But that is reading between the lines of rivets. So you guys are right, notable is being used in different ways. So Merge to Douglas DC-8. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment You think all hull losses are notable. Picking a commercial jet at random, the DC-9, has experienced 131 hull losses of which I counted nearly half(64) involved no fatalities at all. Are you saying all these crashes are notable enough for a Wikipedia article? I'm not saying a hull loss with no fatalities can't be notable but what on a case by case basis makes a crash historic? This crash doesn't do it.- William 01:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - After a lot of discussion aircrash is about notability for aircraft type (and airline/airport) articles and the subject still has to meet normal notability requirements as a stand-alone article. WP:AIRCRASH has long since avoided re-defining the standard notability standards for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Unfortunatly lots of hull losses occur; there doesn't need to be an article on every one. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 19:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Douglas DC-8 Reading WP:AIRCRAFT, the essay technically confuses the Wikipedia terms "prominence", which refers to content; and "notability", which refers to stand-alone articles.  As per the essay, and given that this was an airline plane, this accident is prominent for aircraft articles, but not notable as a stand-alone article.  Given editorial discretion in how much of this article is to be merged, and the long list of prominent DC-8 accidents, editors may choose to split the DC-8 article to accommodate this material.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Merge into the DC-8 article. Consideration could be given to creating a List of accidents and incidents involving the Douglas DC-8 given the number of hull losses. Mjroots (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment needs more work and linking to current articles but List of accidents and incidents involving the Douglas DC-8 has been created. MilborneOne (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. This incident did not result in any deaths nor in any change of policy or technology. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge into List of accidents and incidents involving the Douglas DC-8. I disagree with Boneyard90 since the ASN page (which is the only "source" for the content) says "PROBABLE CAUSE: Left elevator geared tab drive arm assemblies and elevator gust lock crank assembly had failed." Probably a bunch of recommendations issued because of that. However, for this 34-year old accident, an editor fluent in both Japanese and English has got to put a lot work into finding a copy of the report, and other potential sources ("Flight International 14.05.1977") from way back then. When and if someone was willing to do that, and makes a stand alone article, I think it will be easy to recognize as notable. But there is no point having a bunch of stubs for all DC-8 hull losses. LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So we're all agreed, then - it looks to me as if we all agree there's no special reason for a page just on this one hull loss? And there's now a list for it to live on, so we can delete/merge this page, can't we? Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2011 (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.