Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swiss International Airlines Flight 40


 * 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 speedy deleted at authors request. Amortias (T)(C) 20:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Swiss International Airlines Flight 40

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable incident WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS (and non-policy essay WP:AIRCRASH) Wikipedia is not a newspaper or repository for articles on every bump and scrape in aviation. Barely even rates a mention in aircraft, airline or engine articles!!!!!! Petebutt (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't even have a bump or scrape; just landed in a really cold place and the only thing harmed were travel itineraries.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller!  (distænt write)  02:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller!  (distænt write)  02:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: I have been away this weekend and haven't been able to work on this to the degree I would like to (By the way, thanks for taking the time to notify me as the article creator about this AfD). But based on what I was able to finish so far, I could understand why you might nominate it for deletion (though of course, I was never so hasty as a reviewer myself). I agree that purely from an aviation standpoint, this isn't notable ... as has been noted before, there are many diversions every day; we don't have articles about each and every little one. But ... what I see as notable here is the aftermath. It's not every day that an airline and engine manufacturer decide that something like this merits not just repairing the engine but replacing it entirely. That obviously has to be done in situ as you can't just tow an airliner somewhere. And in this case in situ was an airport in the remote reaches of the Canadian North, in the middle of winter, under severe constraints. There were no hangars big enough to accommodate the 777, and so they had to build a tent around the engine to warm the air around it up to about 10 C in order to replace it. In a week, they managed to get the plane back into service. So, I would argue that it's not notable so much as an aviation incident but as an engineering and maintenance accomplishment. Certainly the Popular Mechanics article used as a source seems to suggest as much, and there's another article from Aviation Week which I can't see most of since it's paywalled but appears to make the same point from what I can see of it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have now added a db-g7 template to the page and requested deletion since from the additional delete !votes I do not think my arguments are likely to prevail. So let's not further waste what appears to be everyone's very valuable time. Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above.--IndyNotes (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - A story made to appear marginally interesting does not make it notable. Boeing has exact protocols for this scenario, and, even if you want to claim this is rare, rarity alone has never been assumed as notable. All we have here is a news story about a routine procedure completed in cold weather.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete no indication that this is particularly noteworthy for a a stand-alone article or even a mention on the Boeing 777, engine shutdowns are not the uncommon. MilborneOne (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete One engine on an airliner failed, so it landed and the engine was replaced. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS (and the essay WP:AIRCRASH). In reply to the article's creator, "It's not everyday that X happens" is not a basis for having an article about X. Lots of nonnotable stuff happens on an occasional basis.Edison (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2018 (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.