Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwest Airlines Flight 812 (2nd nomination)

Southwest Airlines Flight 812

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The note left on the talk page was "I have just nominated this page for deletion according to WP:AIRCRASH, Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 4:45 am, 3 April 2011, last Sunday (2 days ago) (UTC+3)" procedural relist. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This AfD was opened as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 4#Southwest Airlines Flight 812 (closed). —C.Fred (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Um, why is it being nominated? A synopsis perhaps?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:AIRCRASH: "The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft". Not meeting WP:AIRCRASH was the original motivation for the deletion nomination. Jarkeld (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' - this AfD should be allowed to run the full seven days. Mjroots (talk)
Keep - Per discussion on the talk page, this incident meets WP:AIRCRASH due to the large number of unreskinned 737-200s withdrawn from service by Southwest Airlines. Worldwide coverage means it meets the WP:GNG. Mjroots (talk) 05:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dear editors. What would Wikipedia be like if we make it a collection of every single aeronautic event that takes place in the sky? Yes sure, it is true that this aircraft suffered some damage for reasons that are yet to be determined. It is true the plane was subject of coverage by mostly 24 hours a day news channel that are eager to fill every minute with information. But the reality is that this event is likely to go to the annals of history as one of those moments that will be forgotten in few months (if not weeks). In addition, we have to analyze how subjective the concept of serious damage we are talking about here. In my opinion, the damage was not serious and experts have downplayed the damage with statements such as -Friday's accident gives no cause for concern about the structural integrity of airplanes in their early years of service, say some air safety experts.- as sourced from Christian Monitor website here. So I conclude that as scary I am sure this flight must have been for the passengers we need to draw a line over what stand alone articles do give our beloved Wikipedia more quality and which one will likely become an archive of information relevant for the next couple of weeks. Sincerely yours --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As an aircraft mechanic and former field engineer and accident investigator for an aircraft manufacturer, and having had responsibility for recommending AD action to the FAA on behalf of that manufacturer, I feel qualified to say that a 3-6 ft hole in a pressurized cabin would be considered a serious hull breach if not hull loss on further inspection and economic determination, and definitely "serious damage to the aircraft." It's time to end the discussion and just keep the article on the basis that it meets WP:AIRCRASH. Dgriffith161 (talk) 05:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note WikiProjects informed. Mjroots (talk)
Keep - This incident prompted a mass inspection of hundreds of aircraft [1] and already 3 more were found to have cracks. The "every single aeronautic event that takes place in the sky" delete argument above is simply a straw man as this is far more significant than most aeronautical incidents (blown tire, bird sucked in engine, etc.). --Oakshade (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gladly will take your reference of straw man as trolling. Above I simply decided to elaborate. I don't believe in my opinion the article adheres to WP:AIRCRASH. Now, let's go down to the facts why don't we?. My suggestion to delete the article went through a talk page and then a DRV. There must be some weight on my rationale if the discussion made it this far don't you think? I might not be right, that's ok, but to disregard my opinion as "straw man" or fallacy is an insult. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK guys, shall we keep this to the topic in hand please. Camilo Sanchez raised the issue of notability in good faith at the article's talk page. Due to his being logged out whilst not realising it (it's happened to me before), the first AfD listing was malformed, and completed by NH419 in good faith. TenPound Hammer speedily closed the AfD in good faith. After further discussion at the article's talk page, the AfD went to DRV, where it was speedily closed with a recommendation to relist so that a full debate can be had. This course of action was supported by myself and BilCat on the article's talk page. It is up to those who wish the article to be deleted to show why it should be deleted, and those who wish the article to be kept to show why it should be kept. At the end of seven days, an uninvolved admin will weigh up the consensus and make a decision. So let's keep to the issue in hand, and not who is arguing for and against deletion. Mjroots (talk) 07:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was a notable incident that had (and is having) serious repercussions across commercial aviation. It can only become more notable as the investigation continues. Frankly any incident that leads to the grounding of a significant number of airplanes has a certain amount of notability. (Of course, if this turns out to be a simple case of poor maintenance on the part of Southwest Airlines, I would support merging it into the Southwest Airlines article. But we haven't gotten to that point yet, and as it stands it passes the required notability threshholds.) WP:GNG passed; see also Mjroots above. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 06:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and because "...a six foot hole appeared in the top of the airplane's fuselage...", it easily passes Wikipedia:AIRCRASH#Aircraft articles. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]