- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Miami Air Flight 293
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Miami Air Flight 293 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:GNG for one WP:NOTNEWS for another. Wikipedia is not a repository for articles on trivial everyday occurrences which have noe notability or lasting impact. Runway excursions are an everyday occurrence and would only become notable for other reasons like loss of life or a notable person being involved. Petebutt ( talk) 08:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Strong keep - WP:GNG easily met and demonstrated to be met. A lack of deaths is ≠ to a lack of notability, even though a presence of deaths adds to the case for notability. Aircraft is a hull loss. Mjroots ( talk) 18:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- @
Mjroots: Is it a hull loss? I'm not seeing that anywhere. If so, it should be added to the article and would probably sway me to keep, but I'm on the fence at the moment.
RecycledPixels (
talk)
06:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
-
Aviation Safety Network currently states "substantial damage". Given that the aircraft has been immersed in seawater and is 18 years old, it's almost certainly a
constructive total loss.
Mjroots (
talk)
06:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- I found a reference that said the plane will be scrapped after the NTSB finishes its investigation and added it. RecycledPixels ( talk) 15:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
-
Aviation Safety Network currently states "substantial damage". Given that the aircraft has been immersed in seawater and is 18 years old, it's almost certainly a
constructive total loss.
Mjroots (
talk)
06:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- @
Mjroots: Is it a hull loss? I'm not seeing that anywhere. If so, it should be added to the article and would probably sway me to keep, but I'm on the fence at the moment.
RecycledPixels (
talk)
06:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Substantial damage to hull, multiple injuries, and a rather unusual aircraft incident. This recent incident was an international news item , and there is some continuing coverage through 13 May (e.g. [1]). As we are unable, at this point point, to assess whether said coverage will be SUSTAINED, we should keep the article per WP:RAPID. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Regularly scheduled passenger airline flight crashes, resulting in
injuries anda hull loss. (Injuries are described as minor). Meets WP:N with international news coverage including multiple non-trivial coverages on BBC [2] [3], Reuters [4] [5] NBC News [6] [7] CNN [8] [9] - Keep. As a result it is a hull loss which the aircraft overrun and fell to the river which is a bit different from other incidents. Triila73 ( talk) 23:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - WP:N is met, along with the WP:CONSENSUS standards that a scheduled airline crash resulting in a hull loss is something that we cover...which, honestly, Pete, you know this. C'mon. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yep, Keep Heavy keep, notable enough to have made significant news, PLUS the plane was written off. Had it either been a smaller aircraft and/or wasn't written off, it wouldn't deserve an article. Cheesy McGee ( talk) 09:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - Might result in changes in regulations and procedures as the plane had only one working thrust reverser and the crew requested to land on runway 10 with a tailwind rather then the planned runway 28 against the wind. Omega13a ( talk) 22:28, 20 May 2019 (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.
- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Miami Air Flight 293
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Miami Air Flight 293 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:GNG for one WP:NOTNEWS for another. Wikipedia is not a repository for articles on trivial everyday occurrences which have noe notability or lasting impact. Runway excursions are an everyday occurrence and would only become notable for other reasons like loss of life or a notable person being involved. Petebutt ( talk) 08:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Strong keep - WP:GNG easily met and demonstrated to be met. A lack of deaths is ≠ to a lack of notability, even though a presence of deaths adds to the case for notability. Aircraft is a hull loss. Mjroots ( talk) 18:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- @
Mjroots: Is it a hull loss? I'm not seeing that anywhere. If so, it should be added to the article and would probably sway me to keep, but I'm on the fence at the moment.
RecycledPixels (
talk)
06:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
-
Aviation Safety Network currently states "substantial damage". Given that the aircraft has been immersed in seawater and is 18 years old, it's almost certainly a
constructive total loss.
Mjroots (
talk)
06:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- I found a reference that said the plane will be scrapped after the NTSB finishes its investigation and added it. RecycledPixels ( talk) 15:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
-
Aviation Safety Network currently states "substantial damage". Given that the aircraft has been immersed in seawater and is 18 years old, it's almost certainly a
constructive total loss.
Mjroots (
talk)
06:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- @
Mjroots: Is it a hull loss? I'm not seeing that anywhere. If so, it should be added to the article and would probably sway me to keep, but I'm on the fence at the moment.
RecycledPixels (
talk)
06:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Substantial damage to hull, multiple injuries, and a rather unusual aircraft incident. This recent incident was an international news item , and there is some continuing coverage through 13 May (e.g. [1]). As we are unable, at this point point, to assess whether said coverage will be SUSTAINED, we should keep the article per WP:RAPID. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Regularly scheduled passenger airline flight crashes, resulting in
injuries anda hull loss. (Injuries are described as minor). Meets WP:N with international news coverage including multiple non-trivial coverages on BBC [2] [3], Reuters [4] [5] NBC News [6] [7] CNN [8] [9] - Keep. As a result it is a hull loss which the aircraft overrun and fell to the river which is a bit different from other incidents. Triila73 ( talk) 23:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - WP:N is met, along with the WP:CONSENSUS standards that a scheduled airline crash resulting in a hull loss is something that we cover...which, honestly, Pete, you know this. C'mon. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yep, Keep Heavy keep, notable enough to have made significant news, PLUS the plane was written off. Had it either been a smaller aircraft and/or wasn't written off, it wouldn't deserve an article. Cheesy McGee ( talk) 09:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - Might result in changes in regulations and procedures as the plane had only one working thrust reverser and the crew requested to land on runway 10 with a tailwind rather then the planned runway 28 against the wind. Omega13a ( talk) 22:28, 20 May 2019 (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.