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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Flight 530[edit]

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

The incident that is the subject of this article is entirely non-notable, fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:AIRCRASH. The incident described is the airline equivalent of a minor car accident in a shopping centre parking lot. Inherently non-encyclopedic. WikiProject Aircraft consensus is to delete it. - Ahunt (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Notability#Accidents -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: These type aviation events are too common to have an article for each. This is a non-notable aviation incident per WP:AIRCRASH and should be deleted. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable or significant. MilborneOne (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:AIRCRASH, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Snow delete. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 19:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: very minor incident, both in terms of impact and of coverage. --Carnildo (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not particularly important. No significant coverage on news or Google. Definite Delete (with capital 'D') Mr. R00t ^{Leave me a Message} 01:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete, not notable in Wikipedia terms. Mjroots (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although i am involved in editing that page, i think the article is too short, has poor content and in not notable. I feel that it should be nominated for speedy deletion. I can't find a reason for not deleting it.--HyperSonic X (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete per nom. A minor incident with no fatalities. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep – I don't understand: Articles should not be deleted if they are factually accurate. It is interesting anyways. Look at Emirates Flight 407 for example. It is not really that notable either, but it still succeeded, although it was nominated for deletion one time earlier. /Heymid (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A significant tailstrike, causing potential structural damage, is a whole 'nother animal from a jetliner encountering severe turbulence. The latter happens relatively often. The former, not so much. Also, we don't base 'factual accuracy' as the basis for keeping or deleting an article, for better or for worse. It's factually accurate that there was a truck turned over in front of our house a few years ago, but we don't have a 2008 Chevy Silverado Florida rollover accident article. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, Bushranger, you crack me up. Delete per nom. YSSYguy (talk) 09:27, 24 May 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.