Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thai Airways Flight 679


 * 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 Thai Airways. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thai Airways Flight 679

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable incident. Runway overruns are very common....William 19:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 19:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions....William 19:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William 19:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Martinillo 03:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinillo (talk • contribs)
 * Delete - non-notable minor incident. Mjroots (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not meet the WP:CONSENSUS for this sort of incident to have a stand-alone article as defined in WP:AIRCRASH, nor does it meet the WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a news service, this sort of thing happens (perhaps distressingly) often and it will be forgotten in a week or two. Might, perhaps, be worth mentioning in the airport article if the story develops any legs, but this is nowhere near the notability for a stand-alone article, and is unlikely to become so. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * KEEP- Yes this article deserves to be kept, it is in compliance with all wikipedia rules. This aircraft is a hull loss of an A330 a 200 million dollar jet, it just starting to hit news articles such as ABC Associated Press, and possible CNN. This is a notable event although no one died. And also under WP:AIRCRASH where it says under aircraft articles The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport, therefor saying it needs to have a proper wikipedia page since it was a hull loss. Also we should wait until it has been declared or not declared a hull loss, I mean really this page should stay up it is quite similar to Lion Air Flight 904, no one died in that incident.
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - The Bushranger One ping only 06:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Thai Airways where it's mentioned in the greatest amount of detail needed already - I couldn't find any evidence of it being a hull loss as described above, and there's no "incidents" section on the airport article. Ansh666 05:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep- This one is great don't remove it (Do do doggy (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC))
 * WP:ILIKEIT - The Bushranger One ping only 06:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - I associate myself with Ansh's argument. No need to create a separate article. FonEengIneeR7 (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:NOTNEWS policy, no demonstrated lasting effect.  LGA talk  edits   07:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete not notable for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not notable incident, I also agree with Ansh's argument. Why create another separate article? Kvisitstump (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep... the story here is also the poor crisis management, and that is a good lesson for others..
 * Redirect to Thai Airways which is the proper place for this minor incident and that already cover it. Cavarrone 06:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete We don't know it with certainty yet, but unlikely a hull loss. Otherwise, articles are not written as a prediction of the future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 15:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Ansh666. The incident does not appear to meet the criteria of WP:AIRCRASH, but events like this are typically covered in the airline's article, as is the case here. Sjakkalle (Check!)  05:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - As an accident: material loss and peoples wounded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.251.162.8 (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete' - at BEST a small paragraph or sentence in the accidents section of the aircraft and/or airport page!!--Petebutt (talk) 15:45, 14 September 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.