Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwest Airlines Flight 345


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Southwest Airlines Flight 345

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nose gear collapses are not uncommon and there is nothing notable about this incident....William 10:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 10:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions....William 10:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William 10:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions....William 10:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. There is already a summary on the articles about the airline and the airport, which is more than sufficient for an incident of this nature. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reread the article and this discussion following the encouragement for people to reconsider their opinions based on new information. Firstly this is a very good reason why we should not rush to create articles before facts are known, and secondly we shouldn't rush to delete them either. However I have reconsidered my recommendation to delete, and I do not see a need to change it. It wasn't a standard nose-gear failure, but I still do not see why it is more notable than many other hard landings causing damage. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. Unlikely a hull-loss. The nosegear will be repaired and the aircraft will be flying again very soon.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 12:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * PD: I'm considering to start a huge number of articles with the link above provided by :)--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 12:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:AIRCRASH. No hull loss, no fatalities. Non-notable incident. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Temporarily striking my !vote to reassess the situation from the discussion below. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The nominator's justification is completely shoddy: Clicking on the supplied link ( [1] ) after the OR justification "Nose gear collapses are not uncommon" yields a Google result page with "Your search - nose gear collapse jet - did not match any news results."  Furthermore, the only result on the page pertains to this very accident's jet being removed from the runway.  So how common are these things?  Also, the accident happened to a fairly new jet (B787-700), at the time when BF Goodrich's manufacture of landing gear has been put to question (it also failed this week at the Sukhoi Superjet 100 belly landing in Keflavík), and the incident closed a major airport.  So if this item fails some guidelines, perhaps the guidelines need adjusting or a more incisive/knowledgeable interpretation.  --Mareklug talk 18:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Huh? The link is working and secondly the Southwest plane was a 737 not a 787. The entire Southwest fleet is composed of 737s....William 18:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The 787 was an obvious typo. There is no such plane as B787-700, I clearly meant B737-700.  You are most unkind in making a case out of this. --Mareklug talk 18:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment You reasoned the article should be saved before it was an accident involving a new aircraft, which it wasn't. You called my justification for this afd as completely shoddy. Your mistake is shoddy, so it was fair game to fire back. Plus I've gone through ASN up to May 2013 now. There have SEVEN incidents this year at least not counting Flight 345 where the nosegear/front landing gear either collapsed or broke off. None of which have articles. I was going to provide the links but the post got lost due to an edit conflict caused by your post. Here is one more of the further 4 I was going to add....William 19:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your justification *is* shoddy. Your link, https://www.google.com/search?q=paul+harney+los+angeles&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=newspapers#hl=en&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&sclient=psy-ab&q=nose+gear+collapse+jet&oq=nose+gear+collapse+jet&gs_l=serp.3...2497.9568.0.10090.22.22.0.0.0.0.653.3691.0j19j1j0j1j1.22.0....0...1c.1.21.psy-ab.Zl8Nlajztgk&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=d312a38c8fe02c1a&biw=1093&bih=422, yields the following (screen capture): https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/105918205/result.png  Me?  I just made a typo, a fucking typo, that anyone with a wit of knowledge about civil aviation would be able to interpret correctly...  --Mareklug talk 19:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * My link is working in both Firefox and America Online, so I don't know what your problem with it is. Your browser perhaps? When you write "Also, the accident happened to a fairly new jet (B787-700), at the time when BF Goodrich's manufacture of landing gear has been put to question (it also failed this week at the Sukhoi Superjet 100 belly landing in Keflavík), and the incident closed a major airport" invoking two other types of aircraft having nothing to do with 345 it is more than a typo....William 19:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You might want to revisit your strategy for linking things for public consumption, because this is the second browser (Google Chrome, after Safari -- that makes 2 main browsers people use) that shows the same dismal result: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/105918205/result2ndbrowser.png --Mareklug talk 23:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I got the same as William using Firefox, IE, and Chrome. Try logging out. Ansh666 23:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You wrote "Also, the accident happened to a fairly new jet (B787-700)" According to here the 737 involved in Flight 345 is over 13 years old. That's not fairly new. As I said, what you wrote is more than a typo....William 19:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Further comment Here are 1, 2, 3, aviation incidents in the first month and a half of 2013 alone where nose gear or front landing gear collapsed. How many of those have articles? None, and one of them was a Tunis Air Commercial Flight. Nose gear collapses are very common....William 18:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you even reading what you are linking?
 * The airplane flew the approach in strong cross wind conditions with wind shear reported at runway 16L some fifteen minutes before the landing. Shortly before touchdown the airplane suddenly lost altitude and impacted the runway with the nose landing gear. This was at a distance of 567 meters from the runway threshold. It bounced three times, causing the nose and main gear to collapse. (atmospheric conditions caused hard landing, collapse of gear)
 * The airplane landed in gusty wind conditions on runway 19 when a rain squall was passing the airport. At about 1600 meters from the threshold, the aircraft veered to the right and went off the runway 200 meters further on. The plane then turned left and travelled a distance of about 114 meters in the grass. It then crossed runway 11/29 perpendicularly and travelled another 130 meters in the grass parallel with runway 19 before entering taxiway F were it came to rest with a collapsed nose landing gear. (atmospheric conditions, aircraft travels perpendicularly, sheers off gear)
 * After the aircraft touched down on the 60 foot wide runway, directional control was lost. The aircraft skidded sideways and departed the runway to the left and collided nose first with a large snow bank. The nose wheel collapsed, both propellers were damaged and there is possible damage to the right hand main gear. (aircraft experienced sideways travel on the ground after landing, gear broken off due to collision)
 * I stand by my characterization of the justification as shoddy, now I will say, shoddier. --Mareklug talk 19:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a aviation incident where nosegear collapse no matter what the cause. How can your reckoning be taken seriously when you bring that up or argue a 737 incident should be notable based on what happens to 787s or Sukhoi Superjet 100's. You couldn't properly link to the newspaper archive I gave also. The hole you're in is preposterously deep but if you want to keep shoveling fine....William 19:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The first and second of the three clauses listed under WP:AIRCRASH stipulate hull loss or fatalities. Fair enough, probably no hull loss occurred and nobody died.  But the third clause reads: The accident or incident invoked a change in procedures, regulations or process that had a wide effect on other airports or airlines or the aircraft industry.  I would argue that a day after the accident and before the investigation is published is not the time frame to interpret this text in the negative, particularly if systemic problems do occur with the landing gear. So, feel free to delete this article when it indeed fails the third clause. --Mareklug talk 18:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Following Mareklug's reasoning, the last Ethiopian's 787 fire at Heathrow also warrants a stand-alone article, and it was redirected shortly after it was created. If there are deficiencies with different manufacturer's parts, then include the incidents at each manufacture's article. Not because there's a glitch with BF Goodrich I'll start articles on every incident around.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 19:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hold your horses. I am not one to lay the blame at the feet of BF Goodrich for this mishap and the Sukhoi at KEF just yet.  Equally likely it was pilot error or yet another cause.  The point I am making is that a day after the accident is not the timeframe to delete the article based on the criteria that allow keeping articles where a major policy adjustment etc. came as a result of the accident.  Also, in the case of La Guardia Airport, an unusually steep approach is necessitated by the surroundings on that particular runway.  The FAA may well rule it unusable for heavier aircraft as a result of this gear collapse, mandating over-the-water approaches only.  And that would fulfill the third criterion for keeping the article. --Mareklug talk 19:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In 2007, a Southwest Airlines Flight 3050 had its nose gear collapse. No article on that. Heck it is so insignificant Aviation Safety Network doesn't even list it....William 00:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:AIRCRASH currently (any suggestion otherwise is WP:CRYSTAL), and WP:NOTNEWS. Ansh666 20:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - looks like things are starting to get interesting. I'm thinking we should let it go for another week or so at least, first... Ansh666 05:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ...or not. Possible merge/redirect to something...don't know what. Ansh666 00:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I tried to fix the indenting, but I was edit conflicted, so oh well. Ansh666 20:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I Oppose deletion at this time. First of all, nose gear collapses are rather rare. But, what is more important is why it happened. The initial reports seem to indicate it was a hard landing, not just a case of a defective nose gear actuator.  At least one news source indicated that the plane suffered some serious damage.  If that turns out to be accurate, then it does meet at least one of the criteria in WP:AIRCRASH


 * I see no harm in waiting for awhile to see what the NTSB comes up with. If factors such as pilots not paying attention to proper glide slope profile and/or Air Speed, or trying to land in conditions that required a go-around, either by limitations in the flight manual, or Company SOPs, then it could develop into a very notable accident.  Since we don't know why it landed so hard, at this point in time, I think it prudent to wait for some NTSB press briefings about what the FDR and CVR reveal. EditorASC (talk) 05:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Deleted articles can be quickly undeleted, so if del'd the page won't be lost for good.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 13:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This fails WP:AIRCRASH, we don't create an article on subjects and then wait to see if it becomes notable, we create articles on subjects that are already notable.  LGA talk  edits   08:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The WP:EVENT guideline is not met: There is no ongoing coverage, but only initial news reports.--FoxyOrange (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not so. There is ongoing coverage in technical press.  I find it funny that you declaim that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and then give as argument that there is no ongoing coverage (which I am about to disprove by example). On Jul 23rd 2013 the NTSB reported, that an investigation into the occurrence rated an accident has been opened. The nose gear collapsed rearwards nd upwards into the fuselage damaging the electronics bay, the aircraft slid 2175 feet (663 meters) on its nose along the runway until the aircraft came to a stop off the right hand side of the runway. The occupants were evacuated via slides, which deployed normally. 9 people were treated for minor injuries as result of the evacuation. The flight data and cockpit voice recorder were already read out. http://avherald.com/h?article=465c1158&opt=4096  --Mareklug talk 19:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, my earlier comment might have been too short. So here again my reasoning, a bit more elaborate. News articles published shortly after an incident took place (a so called news spike) are not sufficient as the base of a Wikipedia article. The WP:EVENT guideline states that in order to be notable, there should be "significant or in-depth coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle". I don't think that this is the case here. There is no ongoing coverage; and I have not come across any source which is not some sort of rewording of a press release (deeper analysis would be needed). The later published sources you cite are only anouncements that there will be an NTSB investigation. But as any aviation incident leads to an investigation, this cannot be used to establish notability.--FoxyOrange (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You really should search more thoroughly:
 * This is not, as you characterize it, a restatement of a news release, but continuing in depth coverage by a major newspaper. And it has only been 2 days. --Mareklug talk 06:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I humbly stand corrected.--FoxyOrange (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

*Neutral - Not a notable incident, did not result in loss of hull or life. However, the investigation is not yet done yet. Airplanegod (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if it's not notable, then the article should be deleted. Reasonings like "there might be more to say about it in the future" are just WP:BALL.--FoxyOrange (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -You are correct then, my mistake Airplanegod (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hard landing, as reported in the press (talk) 09:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - May not just be regular gear failure. Gear appears to have jammed into electronics bay therefore almost confirming the
 * Delete This just reeks of some guy reading the news and wetting himself because he gets to be the first to report it on Wikipedia. Just not notable enough, with no loss of life. Beerest355 Talk 21:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's keep it professional, ok? User:Justinhu12 (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't delete; this is not a standard nosegear collapse (which I agree would not be notable), it is a semi-uncontrolled nosegear-first crash landing which could have ended very badly. It is well worthy of continued discussion and analysis.Nankai (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think everyone who has already voted to delete this article, as well as the nominator, should revisit it as it stands now, after the two disclosures form NTSB on 23 and 25 July. This is NOT a nose gear collapse event.  It is a crash landing on the nose gear, with major repercussions for the aircraft (it MAY become a hull loss, economics depending), airline and the airport, if not general guidelines.  It is not the article you were led to believe you were debating.  --Mareklug talk 05:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Which could have ended very badly" - note the words "could have". It didn't. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Attempting a Google Search using the "verbatim" setting on Search Tools, I tried southwest oakland nose gear giving About 612,000 results while southwest laguardia nose gear gives About 2,380,000 results - I believe this is good empirical data on the relative notability of this incident relative to Oakland which was your classic aircraft nose gear collapse.Nankai (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If nose gear collapses are very common, this article can be expanded and renamed to include others. If this article is just about one pilot that landed on the nose gear, than it should just stay here. Apteva (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability of a dead slug, with no notable consequences or changes in certification, procedures or maintenance. Barely even warrants a mention on the aircraft, airport or airline artricles!!--Petebutt (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * All the Aye-sayers still haven't given any valid reasons for retention of the article. It is as though they think that we delete all articles that we just don't like, which is as far from the truth as you can get and I cannot, for the life of me, understand why they are wasting theirs, and everybody elses time, contesting this delete with such weak arguments. Oh well, that's life.--Petebutt (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. This has been all over the news. It was not a nose gear collapse as initially reported, which would still be notable, it was a landing on the nose gear. Has anyone looked at the landing gear of a plane? There are two wheels on the landing gear and one spindly strut. The main landing gear has four wheels and robust struts capable of supporting the landing impact. Front landing gear are only designed to withstand landing impact on gliders, and that is the only landing wheel that a glider has. Apteva (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "All over the news" - WP:NOTNEWS, and in this day and age of digital news being "all over the news" doesn't establish notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * NB all of the other Southwest incident articles, such as Southwest Airlines Flight 2294. We can not just delete the ones that are embarrassing. Apteva (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that other stuff is irrelevant to whether or not this article should be kept or deleted. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This shouldn't be an article. Really, nothing notable about it. Alex (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Let's wait for more info before making a decisionUser:Justinhu12 (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is fairly strong consensus for Wikipedia:AIRCRASH, even if it is not a guideline or policy, and this incident does not pass muster. I could go along with a redirect per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you need to re-read the meaning of the word "consensus". This AfD so far features nontrivial dissent by several knowledgable aviation editors, for good reasons, too, and a (premature) misrepresentation of the accident by the nominator as a "nose gear collapse", as well as a pile-on of delete-voters parroting the same reason, that it does not meet WP:AIRCRASH.  In no way does this represent "fairly strong consensus".  Even one well-reasoned dissent negates any consensus, and AfD is not a vote mechanism. --Mareklug talk 22:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Bearian is saying that there is consensus for using WP:AIRCRASH to determine notability, not consensus for this specific incident failing. Also, "Even one well-reasoned dissent negates any consensus" is wrong, as consensus does not have to be unanimous, and implying that it does turns it into a vote. Ansh666 23:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A single well-reasoned dissent has nothing to do with unanimity or lack of it, and claiming that lending it weight somehow implies voting is straw-man argumentation. A single well-reasoned dissent negates consensus on the merit of its own reasoning.  It may be opposed by every other participant, who gives inferior or insufficient support for his or her position. Consensus is general agreement, and it only takes one meritorious dissent to negate it. --Mareklug talk 00:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is not a newspaper [and] considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion .", this is that classic example of a newsworthy event that has no encyclopaedic notability, I will concede that it might in the future but as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball either we will have to wait and see, during that time a brief mention on the Southwest Airlines is all that is called for.  LGA talk  edits   00:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I went through all your edits, out of simple curiosity, and there is not a single aviation-related one among them. Not one content edit in anything technological, in fact.  But here, you claim that this accident fails WP:AIRCRASH, notably doing so before NTSB revealed on the 25th the nose-first-landing aspect of this accident, as well as the extent of the damage to the aircraft (probably requiring a write-off).  On the other hand, your edits contain a lot of wiki-litigation and logging speedy deletions.  So, please humor me, and kindly indicate rationale, preferrably on the merits of the case, as to why you think we need to delete this article.  And, by the way, quoting/pontificating about what Wikipedia is not to 8-year-wikiediting wikipedian, editing in aviation crashes, no less, is a bit pompous and gratuitous, wouldn't you think?  --Mareklug talk 02:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My contributions are of no relevance, nor is your length of service. What is of relevance are WP's policies and guidelines and in my view (and the view of others above) the subject of this article does not meet the inclusion policy guidelines for a stand alone article. The burden of proof is on everyone wishing to retain the article to demonstrate that it does meet those policies. So is this crash "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance"? and does it "have significant impact over a wide region" ? at the moment the answer to both of those is no.  LGA talk  edits   03:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, comment on the content, not the contributor. Ansh666 05:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. At this point the AfD is moot, as this is now simply a B class sub-article of Southwest Airlines. Apteva (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Counter-comment - from the assessor, on the talkpage: "Note:Just because I have assessed it as B-class does not preclude this article from the AfD process.--Petebutt (talk) 08:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)"
 * Interesting. Are we sure Petebutt is correct in his assertion?  Would an FA article also be subject to a meaningful AfD proceedings?  What is the cut-off in rating and AfD, if any?  --Mareklug talk 23:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, at least one FA has wound up at AfD, and in good faith too (don't remember if they were deleted, but I would like to think they weren't). There is no cutoff in rating at AfD. Any article can be nominated, as long as there is a reasonable rationale. Ansh666 00:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Pursuing that line of reasoning, as this AfD was filed prematurely and under misrepresenting reasoning (a garden variety nose-gear collapse), should it not be dismissed on formal grounds? Perhaps then someone will still wish to relist it, but it will be a different article and set of justifications that will be debated.  --Mareklug talk 00:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The reasonable rationale does not have to be the nominator's rationale, it could be that of anyone participating in the discussion. For example, a nomination in bad faith with no rationale is still valid if another editor provides a good-enough reason for deletion (that editor then effectively becomes the nominator). This AfD isn't as drastic: concerns above that this article still fails all 3 clauses of WP:AIRCRASH are still a valid rationale. Ansh666 00:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How can this article be said to fail the "serious damage to the aircraft" clause (repeated for aircraft, airport, airline article inclusion)? It also satisfies all clauses of the general notability guideline, so under WP:AIRCRASH it merits its own article.  The delete-voters are simply making an unsupported claim! --Mareklug talk 01:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for everyone else, but personally, I !voted delete but am right now on the fence (if there was an "unusual incident" clause in WP:AIRCRASH as there is in WP:CRIME, I'd be firmly keep). I'll also remind you as I did above, comment on the content, not the contributors. Ansh666 01:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether the deletion rationale have changed or not, the article still fails notability according to WP:AIRCRASH. Merging discussions won't be there if the article warranted stand-alone status.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 11:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - No indication that this meets Wikipedia policy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. All available information shows that this was a simple mechanical failure or pilot error accident, resulting in an accident with little continued news coverage. There is no indication that it will be a hull loss or have any lasting consequences, such as Airworthiness Directives, Service Bulletins, changes in ATC or training procedures or any other lasting effects. As noted above we don't retain articles that don't comply with Wikipedia's policies in case they become notable in the future. - Ahunt (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article should wait for further report and investigation in the matter to comply with WP guidelines for notability and WP:FUTURE. Edue</b><b style="color:#D35">mo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 20:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Reaffirming my original delete !vote - From what I can tell, nothing has happened so far that would indicate this air crash meets the criteria set forth at WP:AIRCRASH. Keeping the article under the assumption that the crash will become notable in the future is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Right now, the subject does not meet notability guidelines. However, if and when the subject becomes notable in the future, then by all means, speedily recreate the article. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether the damage counts as serious damage. I think all that happened was the front landing gear collapsed harder than usual and crushed some of the equipment stored above. It shouldn't be serious enough to write off the aircraft or significant enough that it is a reason for including it in an encyclopedia. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Regardless of the cause of the incident, this doesn't cross the notability bar. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - definitly a americanized story I mean had this been anywhere else in the world no one would even consider making this article. OK so the airplane landed abit dramatic but overall everything went fine. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete not really notable one of many similar bad landings that result in bending the aircraft, nobody hurt so really a notnews event. MilborneOne (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2013 (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.