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 Speedy Keep. Nomination has been withdrawn and the article will obviously be kept given the trend of comments that note increasing news coverage and apparent total loss of the aircraft. Jehochman ^Talk 13:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Airlines Flight 1404[edit]

Continental Airlines Flight 1404 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I'd say this one is a case of recentism - something that's going to be forgotten in a few weeks. Article doesn't seem to have any long-term value - everyone on board survived, and it didn't result in any serious effects to the airline industry or society in general. See WP:NOT#NEWS. Graymornings_(talk) 22:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Issues have been addressed - see below. Graymornings_(talk) 07:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is significant as a serious accident and/or incident involving a commercial airliner. I see absolutely no reason whatsoever why this would be flagged for deletion - it involved 38 injuries including several critical ones, an aircraft brake malfunction on takeoff (aircraft incidents not involving pilot error are distinguishably uncommon), and the total write-off of a commercial aircraft. Considering there are many close calls that didn't even cause accidents documented on Wikipedia, you'll need to make a case for getting rid of all of these before I understand why you'd want this one specific one to be deleted. Generally speaking, anything that occurs in which over 100 human lives narrowly escaped death is worth documenting - and looking at the many aircraft incident lists that have been assembled on Wikipedia (categorized by aircraft, airline, location, date, flight purpose - commercial in this case, etc.), it seems obvious to me that this incident categorically belongs on Wiki. Please consider that the reason this incident is news all over the world is because it's not just some small airplane with a few people on board, but rather a loaded commercial jet.Gameforge (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Air_France_Flight_358 - Similar incident, yet there is a Wikipedia article, and from the photos, this aircraft will likely be written off due to the fire and severe buckling from when it went off the runway. Based on past articles, either this one stays, or the others, including the British Airways and Air France incidents, need to be deleted as well. Photos including clear ones of the aircraft, are available here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081221/ap_on_re_us/airport_accident --Maqattaq (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Except there's one thing: Significant damage to the aircraft - When an aircraft is a writeoff (the post-crash fire makes this very likely as a writeoff), the accident is notable. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/British_Airways_Flight_BA38 WhisperToMe (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the info's already on Continental_airlines#Minor_incidents. Graymornings_(talk) 22:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: More information will come shortly as the NTSB investigates the accident. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For now, though, it's not enough for an article. Future notability doesn't equal present notability (WP:BALL). Graymornings_(talk) 01:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future notability IS acceptable if it certain to take place. From WP:Crystal: "ndividual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." - It is almost certain that the NTSB will investigate this incident. Plus the destruction of the aircraft is present notability. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More information is coming out, and the reason to keep this is to keep the facts straight, in that we should list everything that they have ruled out or are looking at, including the weather, mechanical error, or pilot error. There has already been much discussion and speculation (they are looking at brakes as well as the wind conditions, which so far the FAA has implied to be a major factor -- http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081222/ap_on_re_us/airport_accident). This is hardly a minor incident, as there were several major factors contributing to significant injury and loss of aircraft. These developments further support my speedy keep vote. --Maqattaq (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per policy WP:NOT#NEWS and essay WP:NOTNEWS. This is neither a newspaper nor a log of every brake failure incident in the world. Edison (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: This rationale is not correct; this is not just a "brake failure." This is "fire consuming half the airplane" - Just like Air France Flight 358. When the airplane is a writeoff or likely a writeoff, the incident is notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:Edison and User:Graymornings. Nothing to indicate this anything other than a crash landing. In the future if this turns out to have been caused by a significant thing such as a problem with the aircraft or with the runway, then an article can be revisited. NcSchu_(Talk) 22:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: Crash landings that lead to significant damage, such as Air France Flight 358 are notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with NcSchu - if the NTSB finds something major (definition of which to be assigned at a later point) then we can recreate the article. Otherwise, it really is not news. Mononomic (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Conditional Keep I'd rather be inclusive than exclusive. This page should be kept at least until a the NTSB report has been completed and released. If there is nothing found, then that should be noted along with some simple information on Denver International Airport and Continental_airlines#Minor_incidents. If there is viable data or information, then definitely keep this article. Mononomic (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • AF358 had its article created and kept before the TSB had conclusions from it. As it seems it is likely the NTSB will find something with this, as it had fire consuming half the airplane. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have changed my opinion. See above. Mononomic (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update from 9NEWS: "it could be a year before they know exactly what happened" [1]. Just another reason to keep the article around until we learn more. Mononomic (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The chances are decent that the NTSB will draw important conclusions with this, especially if mechanical failure is proven as currently suggested, but until we know such we should stop talking balls. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's already provisions for creating articles about ongoing events; we can use those instead of deleting a page which will inevitably return once the NTSB report is final (which should be fairly quick considering everyone lived).Gameforge (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notable per the WP:AVIATION Style guide - Accidents notability, "It involves unusual circumstances". I'd say an accident that results in a fire that burns much of the aircraft without any loss of life is unsuaual. If lives had been lost, this one would have been automatically notable. - BillCJ (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Given the circumstances of the event, its notable enough for inclusion. Umbralcorax (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep This should be kept because not only was it an accident that resulted in a write-off, but also because it could be used as a good example for enacting proper emergency deplaning procedures. It is also the largest aviation accident at the Denver International.TXMexJunkie (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless the NTSB finds any major problems this is a minor crash and probably only should have a paragraph on the main Continental page in the minor incidents section. There have been many aircraft write offs that don’t have their own wikipedia page. BA38 has a page because it was the first major problem with the 777 and no one really knows what caused it. Spikydan1 (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You said "There have been many aircraft write offs that don’t have their own wikipedia page." - Many of these writeoffs need their Wikipedia pages. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per the rules mentioned by BillCJ, I will take this one to deletion review if necessary. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia:AVIMOS#DENTNOTE; the article is properly sourced, and the circumstances seem unusual enough to warrant an article for the subject. – Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 03:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In addition to the Aviation Wikiproject guidelines noted above, the Airlines Wikiproject guidelines consider a write off or severely damaged aircraft to be a sufficient condition for notability. I highly suspect the plane will be written off, and even if it isn't, a notably burned starboard side of the aircraft, broken fuselage, separated #1 engine, and sheared off landing gear seem sufficient to classify the aircraft as severely damaged. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the aircraft has already been written off, according to this source: http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20081220-0Gameforge (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did they get that info? Websites can't write off an aircraft...Continental and their insurance company will likely have a meeting after a full inspection of the arcraft and decide what to do and who has to pay what. Then Continental will have to tell their stockholders the outcome of that meeting and then it will be offical. While it may look like a write off and may have the damage of a write off it is not a write off yet. Spikydan1 (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• reply - Well that web site cites the NTSB and Continental as their source. There's quite a bit of information on that page that doesn't seem to have come from the media, including the aircraft's tail number, the manufacturer serial numbers, and well as details about the crash (such as the excursion point on the runway at taxiway WC). This site is cited quite often on Wiki aircraft incident articles, and I see no reason it might have any compromised credibility.Gameforge (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. 38 injuries (2 critical), no obvious cause, a 737 written off, and a major airport partially closed... that's clearly a serious accident. If you look at List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft, which I regularly edit, and contributed to its dedicated guideline, this is clearly something for which an article is appropriate. I hate to veer in the direction of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but if you look at the list, a large number of articles listed there are about accidents or incidents far less serious than this. --MCB (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:AVIMOS#DENTNOTE and a glance at the photograph here Melburnian (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MCB's rationale. Cbl62 (talk) 06:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like the issues that led me to nom this article to begin with have been addressed. Per the aircraft's apparent writeoff and the "unusual circumstances" surrounding the incident (and the fact that the article is now quite a bit longer, more detailed, better-sourced), I say keep it. Graymornings_(talk) 07:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - probably a moot point as the nominator has withdrawn the nomination, but WP:AVIMOS#DENTNOTE is satisfied and BillCJ's point about the lack of loss of life for an incident of this severty adding to this article's notability is valid in my opinion. -- Rob.au (talk) 12:46, 22 December 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.