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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124[edit]

Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Such events happen from time to time and are not notable. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Inclusion criteria fourth bullet. Derild4921☼ 14:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Derild4921. 2 says you, says two 14:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Glad only minor injuries to a few people. And guys how about starting a website which records every mishap in the airline industry, rather than using WP for that when this is supposed to be an encyclopedia to give basic information on notable topics to the general public? Borock (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There already is such a place, although not in wikiform. It's a great specialist reference tool. Note the key word, people: It is a specialist publication, not a list of missing encyclopedia topics. The problems are twofold: the language is too technical for many, and it is fairly low-profile. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a significant event. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP - Meets WP:AIRCRASH criteria A3 and P3. Also, the airliner was written off, which also adds to notability here. Mjroots (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This was created at a time when the language of WP:AIRCRASH was such that it included just about anything that happened on an airliner. More recently, common sense alternatives have been adopted so that incidents that don't merit their own article are mentioned elsewhere; in this case, it could go in the article about Kingfisher Airlines. We really should have an article about "runway overruns", but most such incidents never become notable enough, thank God, to merit their own article. Mandsford 16:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a followup, A3 now reads "If the accident or incident matches criteria only in this section, then coverage should normally be on the article about the aircraft or airline." This doesn't appear to qualify under P3 (Criminal prosecution - one or more of the aircrew, maintenance workers, or other professionals involved (including executives) are subject to criminal prosecution or military discharge.) Even at that, meeting more than one criterion is not an automatic notability . I have no objection to a bold redirect of the article to Kingfisher Airlines, given that Mjroots put a good deal of work into it under the policy that existed at that time, and there's no reason I see to erase the history, where details can be merged into the airline article. Mandsford 17:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Diego Grez (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Mikemoral♪♫ 22:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, resulted in long-term repercussions, largely investigation into the incident, the release of which guarantees further coverage, but also, though it's somewhat less notable, the actions taken against several personnel involved in the incident by the government. C628 (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Have an article on the crash is not justified as it is not the crash that is what is historically notable. The significance and repurcussions are evidently related to several airlines, pilots, and/or the airport involved due to a series of failures and errors, and not just this particular crash, and therefore this can be adequately covered in other articles without violating NOT#NEWS. MickMacNee (talk) 14:25, 31 August 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.