Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwest Airlines Flight 345 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Nordic   Nightfury  08:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Southwest Airlines Flight 345
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nominated as a G4 recreation CSD. The article was slightly expanded with a few extra sources from the original, so I refused the CSD, but it is mostly the same as the previous version deleted at AfD, so bringing here. Black Kite (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 *  Keep or redirect - This is a likely search term, therefore, it should be kept or redirected to Southwest_Airlines. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as G4 tagger per the previous afd. P p p er y  (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: the last AfD is completely irrelevant because nearly all who commented believed that it would not be a hull loss. Essentially, the article was nominated prematurely; that is, not enough information as of late July 2013 to make an accurate assessment of delete vs. not delete. Since then, a lot of new information has come in, and the aircraft is indeed a hull loss. For this reason, I voted a Strong Keep (see below). --Eye Pee Pee Address (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Though there were no fatalities, this was a hull loss accident and I thought that this was generally considered sufficient to justify an article on wiki? The article has weaknesses, notably a lack of a definitive conclusion of pilot error (though this sounds like the conclusion) but does have a variety of sources.  Nose wheel collapses are not uncommon, but landing on a nose wheel (as happened in this case) is much less common, as I understand it.  Several delete !votes at the previous AfD noted that it was not a hull loss accident, or speculated that the aircraft would be repaired; according to the article, these suppositions were incorrect.  EdChem (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, as hull loss does appear sufficient under AIRCRASH. EdChem (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Keep  - the previous discussion referred, repeatedly, to WP:AIRCRASH, but as a hull-loss, this incident passed that criteria. Epson Salts (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Hull loss, death and/or injury is not necessarily a requirement to sustain an article. Also, recreation was not by original creator, but another editor. Mjroots (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Citing WP:AIRCRASH is completely inappropriate in this discussion; as the page itself says, Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting. Given that both AfD discussions for this stand-alone accident article have incorrectly relied on AIRCRASH, I think this needs other notability-based arguments to back up any !votes. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Southwest_Airlines; I'm not seeing individual notability, but it does meet the guidelines for inclusion in WP:AIRCRASH. ansh 666 21:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect; if the latter, then to Southwest_Airlines, which has info on the landing. Like Ansh666, I do not see individual notability, and as noted above, WP:AIRCRASH does not apply to individual articles like this one. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane 2007  talk 01:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This article meets the criteria for a keep, in part, because it was a hull loss (plane destroyed). For years to come, readers will look up crashes of major airlines. This is one of them. There are many reliable sources that document this crash of a Southwest Airlines flight. Southwest Airlines is one of the largest airlines in the world but not the largest. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article meets the criteria for a keep; see also WP:AIRCRASH. Shelbystripes (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ... which is an essay about whether accidents should be mentioned in airline/airport/aircraft type articles. P p p er y  (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And which discusses notability guidelines sufficiently enough. Regardless, this is a notable accident. Shelbystripes (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's still an essay which explicitly recomends not to be cited in deletion discussions (see the quote provided by above).  P p p er y  (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And it still discusses notability guidelines sufficiently. You are not adding anything further at this point, nor are you persuading me to change my opinion. This is a notable air crash. Shelbystripes (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep the circumstances of the hull loss, backed up by ample reliable and verifiable sources, justifies retention. Alansohn (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - clearly an incident that caused a $15.5 million written off (total hull loss) must be included. It caused changes in Southwest's cockpit resource management (CRM). Also refer to Dallas News article and USA Today article. --Eye Pee Pee Address (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * An accident that causes a major airline to overhaul its training practices is certainly notable. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2016 (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.