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The result was withdrawn, due to mixed opinions about the article. Heymid (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Flight 407

[edit]

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

I don't think that this article is notable enough. This incident/accident did not affect the industry, and no injuries or fatalities were caused by this tail-strike occurence. Heymid (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH, non notable. At least based on the information available David V Houston (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ATSB's interim report release indicates that the investigation has led the operator to institute "procedural, training and technical initiatives across its fleet and operations", and Airbus "has released a modified version of its cockpit performance-planning tool and is developing a software package that automatically checks the consistency of the flight data being entered into the aircraft's flight computers by flight crews". The ATSB investigation is continuing. User:LeadSongDog come howl 18:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems about as close as you can get to a major air catastrophe and still escape. Looks like it got a lot of mainstream press coverage, and was taken very seriously by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. -- Boing! said Zebedee 19:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or give a serious makeover. Two references which are important to the substance of this article, [1] and [2], can no longer be accessed. Moriori (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Other online refs now provided for those points, although online access to the source isn't in any sense mandatory to meet WP:V.User:LeadSongDog come howl 20:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's the closest thing to a major air disaster in Australia for years and the subject of major investigation. Shaz91 (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly, this will end as a no consensus or as a keep, but no injuries, no historical significance. Per WP:AIRCRASH, this should probably be merged to the airline article. Mandsford (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Emirates Airlines#Incidents and accidents (there is a section there already but it needs updating and very minor expansion). This does not meet the WP:AIRCRASH criteria for a standalone article. Although WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, it enjoys widespread consensus for the majority of it. The most significant area of disagreement is related to hull-loss accidents and is thus not relevant to this incident. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bad enough to be classified as an accident by the ATSB, and seems unusual enough to warrant inclusion. No deaths (thank goodness), but significant damage to both aircraft and air field equipment, and the air crew was asked to resign. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fascinating reading, well-sourced. Relevant to discussions of human factors in aviation safety. Mote (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2010 (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.