Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryanair Flight 296 (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Ryanair.  So Why  07:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ryanair Flight 296
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Non notable event.
 * Nearly identical information located in main Ryanair article.
 * Does not meet the criteria of being notable by WP:Aviation guidelines WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide T*85 (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect Merge anything useful although I don't see any sign of referenced information. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   —ApprenticeFan (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge anything not already mentioned in the Ryanair article. Mandsford (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy redirect as even the nom is suggesting. Content already in Ryanair and that's where this ought to be re-directed. StarM  02:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.   --  StarM  02:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   --  StarM  02:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/Delete While it apparently resulted in a few minor changes to policy it doesn't appear to have been a notable accident in aviation history nor did it result in a groundbreaking, notable change to airline/aviation codes or procedures so I can't see this fitting any criteria for an independent article. NcSchu ( Talk ) 03:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep "It is a non-injury incident which materially contributes to a change in industry or aircraft procedures." It doesn't say anything about "minor". The incident has resulted in changes in how ATC deals with these types of emergency procedures, so it is notable to the extent that it tells us where these changes came from. 79.68.188.52 (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Article has not been improved with respect to references as was suggested in an earlier AfD debate. Adequately covered in the Ryanair and Stansted Airport articles. Mjroots (talk) 06:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets requirements re changes to industry practice. Changes were made to how ATC deals with fire emergencies as a reult of this incident. If those changes had been in place and followed, this would not be notable. But they weren't, so it is. 217.28.34.132 (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with above. Changes to emergency procedures were made by CAA as a result. 212.159.92.22 (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The article has been improved since the last AfD. It now much more accurately reflects what happened, as well as giving a link to the recommendations by the investigators. But merge is a possibility, since the section in the main Ryanair article is similar. Harry the Dog WOOF  09:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The only arguments for inclusion are: 1. At the time it was the most serious Ryanair incident and it's not anymore. 2. The incident report led to recommendations (as all reports do) but no has offered any verification that the incident actually lead to changes. In any case they would have been minor ones. The guidelines say materially contributes means "to a significant degree". 87.74.3.2 (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The purpose of the recommendations was to try to prevent another Manchester incident, which this could easily have become had there been an actual fire. Seems pretty material to me. Harry the Dog WOOF  10:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not particularly notable and all accident reports make recommendations although none appear to be notable enough to be detailed in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  Merge/ Delete This was a non-notable aviation incident.  Merge summary to Boeing 737 Next Generation (Accidents and incidents section) (not notable for there either) and delete Flight 296 article. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There are 7 published reports by AAIB in 2008, 5 of them involve airlines. All of them have recommendations, all of them do not have there own article, and only two of them are listed in the airlines article.
 * Comment There are 7 published reports by AAIB in 2008, 5 of them involve airlines. All of them have recommendations, all of them do not have there own article, and only two of them are listed in the airlines article.

--T*85 (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * November 2006, Thomas Cook Airlines, 5 recommendations to Airbus,
 * October 2006, Eastern Airways, 4 recommendations to FAA & BAE Systems,
 * October 2005, British Airways. 9 recommendations to BA, Airbus, EASA, ICAO,
 * March 2006, Emerald Airways. 1 recommendation to themselves telling them to do a better job,
 * June 2006, TNT Airways. 1 safety recommendation to the country of Belgium to carry out an investigation into TNT,
 * Keep - As I wrote before, important event that received lots of media attention due to exposing problems with Ryanair's safety training. There's too much topic specific content to merge to the Ryanair article. Article has even been improved since the last AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 05:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The media criticism of Ryanair's training wasn't borne out in the report which made 1 minor training recommendation. 87.74.3.2 (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Can you point out anything that is in the Ryanair Flight 296 article that is not mentioned in the Ryanair article?--T*85 (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Ryanair. Comparing this to other incidents we have articles on, this emergency landing is a minor event, no injuries, no real peril, no write-off level damage to the plane. If this were an incident with another airline, deletion would probably be quite uncontroversial. However, while Ryanair's safety record remains strong, its safety practices have been under scrutiny and that scrutiny is worthy of coverage. This incident is only part of the reason behind that scrutiny. That scrutiny relates more to the airline itself than the incident, therefore I think it is better to cover this incident, along with the whole scrutiny Ryanair has received, in the article on the airline. The current Ryanair article has a reasonable summary of the event already. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- yet another NN aviation incident. We do not have articles on car prangs, and we do not need them on minor aviation breakdowns either.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2008 (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.