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 delete. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air Canada Flight 190[edit]

Air Canada Flight 190 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article narrowly survived an AfD last year right after its creation, which in turn was right after the event itself. I feel that, while I generally hate the phrase, the article's creation and survival are down to WP:recentism. The article is a failure of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:AIRCRASH. There is no lasting effect, and all the injured were out of hospital the same day. I do however feel I should make sure people are aware I nominated this one the last time around, as well. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not surprisingly, all of the news sources are from the first few days after the incident. Basically, the plane ran into some severe turbulence, and there were some injuries that required medical attention, but not to the extent that an overnight hospital stay was required. Mandsford (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable airplane incident. Letsdrinktea (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This kind of violent CAT and computer failure is not common and warranted extensive government investigation as to why this happened. There is no WP:MUSTBEDEATHS clause for an article to pass WP:NOTABILITY which this article passes the core criteria of. --Oakshade (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No-one here has said there must be deaths, but we have pointed out that the lack of deaths or serious injuries means it misses one of the most common reasons why an air accident is considered notable. I've been behind nonfatal articles, such as the 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion and Adam Air Flight 172. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. - BillCJ (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. MilborneOne (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I think that all of the deletion arguments thus far has been well said. Cheers, CP 22:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- This was an unusual event and is well documented. riffic (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia does not need an article on every bumpy ride someone had on some type of transport. No injuries serious enough to keep anyone in hospital overnight. When a city bus has a fender bender, passengers often rush to the hospital to try and document liability: should we have an article on every bus that bumps a car? A common as dirt event. Edison (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this minor incident has not changed the world of aviation in any way. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Minor incident. This incident does not even have an entry in the relevant aircraft article. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Aircraft turbulence is not a notable incident. No ramifications, no lasting implications related to the incident. It was a bumpy ride. I found myself saying "really, that's it?" while reading the article. Does not meet WP:AVIMOS#DENTNOTE. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The official investigation will be ongoing for at least another six months, more probably a year. The latest TSB report out is for a ballooning accident in the preceding summer. For whatever reasons, TSB no longer publishes updates on investigations while they are still in progress. The unexplained disengagement of the autopilot is definitely not a trivial matter. See ADIRU#Failures and directives for some similar mysterious disengagements that are gradually becoming clearer.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant coverage... reliable independent sources... notability. Non-fatal and recent does not imply non-notable (e.g. US Airways Flight 1549). Current and potential detail is sufficient enough that it does not warrant the burden of merging into Air Canada, and should stand alone as its own article. Dl2000 (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a bigger difference from Flight 1549 from this one. The pilots of Flight 1549 rescued a downed plane away from the big buildings of New York, making a one in a million landing. The crew were honored by the President and before the Super Bowl, and news sources are still happening over an month after the incident. That's famous, but this (planes make an emergency landing everyday) isn't. Perfect example of WP:NOT#NEWS Delete Secret ^account 14:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails AIRCRASH, and delete is also supported by numerous other recent similar news incidents that have been listed at AfD and deleted. At some point (a point I believe has already been reached), enough similar AfDs are gone through that it's safe to say that community consensus has established a precedent. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Is anyone ever going to need this article? It's not major enough to warrant anyone really caring now, let alone in the future. It's superfluous. Merpin (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.