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The result was Withdrawn. My nomination was based on the supposition that air incidents are not considered automatically notable; that appears to be incorrect and I stand corrected. That the prime minister was in the vicinity might affect notability seems laughable to me; that was the only "special" titbit the article offered at the time - there was no mention that this was the first hull loss of a 777. --kingboyk (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Airways Flight BA38[edit]

British Airways Flight BA38 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is a news story (an interesting one, for a day or two) not an encyclopedia topic. Nobody was killed, it's apparently not an incident of any historical import, just a minor air crash. WP:NOT a newspaper. kingboyk (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, this is the first time a 777 has had an accident and it happened at the worlds busiest airport just metres from the Prime Minister. Also, this article is less than two hours old, I think we should wait a bit before nominating it for deletion. --Philip Stevens (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should wait a bit before making articles on news articles. We are not a news service. The article currently fails to demonstrate it's own importance. "Just metres from the prime minister" - oh really?! He was at Heathrow but I doubt it was metres, and he wasn't hit. Sorry. --kingboyk (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was only metres away, Nick Robinson (who was on Brown's plane) said he could look out the window and see it. He said he was less than 400 yards away. --Philip Stevens (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the first hull-loss accident, not the first accident at all. That makes it notable. However, the proximity of the Prime Minister is totally irrelevant IMO - at best a much weaker reason and doesn't secure notability in itself. (A car accident near the PM might make the news, but not an encyclopaedia entry.) Hairy Dude (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - 0 fatalities does not equal 0 notability. Any failure of a vehicle carrying that number of passengers is noteworthy, especially at an airport that busy, or owned by an airline that large. Radagast (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - agree with above user - the proximity of the incident to the British Prime Minister who happened to be going to China himself (from whence the plane came) make this notable, plus the fact that 777s are normally considered to be fairly safe aircraft. -- Roleplayer (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In terms of aircraft accidents, this is a significant one as it is the first major failure of a Boeing 777. I think it better to just let this article develop, though I understand the notnews concerns. Woody (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The first hull loss of a Boeing 777 is notable. Mjroots (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not encyclopedic; it's newspaper material, not encyclopedia article material. Not the first time a 777 has had a major failure; see Boeing 777. 400m is a quarter mile/half a kilometer away; not "close". This incident is already included as a 2-line entry in the Boeing 777 article, where it belongs (first hull loss is indeed notable for inclusion in that article, just not as an article of its own). When this AFD ends in a few days, with some perspective, I suspect it will be more obvious to everyone that this shouldn't be a stand-alone article. --barneca (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepFirst accident involving the Boeing 777, significant importance. --Markie (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Speedy Keep Definitely notable for a large aircraft from a major airline to crash land at one of the world's major airports. This is not "just" a news story, it is a news story right now because it has just happened but it is a notable event that will no doubt continue to generate encyclopedic content. For an example of what such an article would likely expand into see Air France Flight 358 which is an almost identical incident (identical in all the important ways, bar the fire). When that article was created it also just sounded like a news story [1], but only because that is the only information that was available. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to Boeing 777. I'm sure that, today, this looks like "history-in-the-making"... but it's not. It'll be forgotten by Saturday. Mandsford (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe you are right about it being forgotten but that doesn't change how notable it is. Notable is not the same as well known. There are plenty of things that the majority of people have forgotten about, or never knew about, that are still notable. It may not be news tomorrow but, as the nominator points out, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep at least until I see how the crew saved the day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.106.143.252 (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - agree with Random Fixer Of Things - AF358 is the first thing that comes to mind.Markomagare (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SNOW chance of a consensus to delete. It is too soon to determine whether the notability is temporary. It is notable today and may (or may not) be notable in a weeks time. Mayalld (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Per above ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 15:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Should keep this article, the Air France flight 358 crash with no fatalities with another 'safe' airliner has its own article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dxlondon (talk • contribs) 14:53, 17 January 2008
• Keep Loss of power and avionics makes this a very serious incident in every respect. That no one died is immaterial. M100 (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think it's the first (non-security related) incident at Heathrow for quite a few years. Astronaut (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per other rationale. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per the above. —Nightstallion 16:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The coincidental proximity of a political figure to an accident really doesn't make it notable. This should be left in the 777 article for now. I would support the article being reinstated once hard facts about the cause of the accident are available, but Wikipedia isn't the place for rumor and hearsay. FireFury (talk)

The notability of the article has nothing to do with the PM. The notability is the first major crash (hull loss?) of the 777. Mjroots (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep A rare accident invovling a major airline at a major airport - Linczone^Talk/Watch 16:25, 17 January 2008 (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.