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 no consensus. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 San Francisco International Airport runway incursion[edit]

2007 San Francisco International Airport runway incursion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A previous AfD debate (at a different title) was speedy-closed by a non-admin. DRV overturned this closure as inappropriate, and suggested relisting. Per the original listing, Weak delete, citing notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz 15:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• del Nonencyclopedic topic. Incidents happen every second all over the world. `'Mїkka 15:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - Not the place for news reports! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpx (talk • contribs)
• Delete A near collision does not meet any notability standard I can find. Did it even make the newspapers? If so then delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Edison 16:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment This seems contradictory, if it didn't make the news it's not notable, but if it did it's covered by WP:NOT#NEWS? It meets the WP:N standard, plus the draft standards for aircraft accidents and incidents. Also the continuing news coverage means it is not covered by WP:NOT#NEWS either. So I don't understand your reasoning. Dhaluza 09:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notability of the incident was established in the article shortly after the original nomination was made. Borderline, yes, but also notable in that it's a warning of what could happen, and an illustration of how the collision avoidance proceedures did work. Repercussions of this should be felt for awhile, as it's not even been 6 weeks since it happened. - BillCJ 17:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable incident, in and of itself, with too little sourcing. In previous discussions, supporters have said the notability in this incident lies in the successful use of the AMASS system to avert disaster. If this is so, then any worthwhile content should be merged to that article. [edit conflict] BillCJ's comments are exactly why this article should be deleted. The borderline notability, I feel, doesn't cross the border yet...the recent occurence of the event moves it strongly into the "News" category, which we are not a news service...and if it's primary purpose is to illustrate how collision avoidance systems worked, then that's where this info belongs; in an article about collision avoidance systems. --InkSplotch 17:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Striking my vote for now, as it looks like the article has been greatly expanded since this AfD restarted. I'm still on the fence about notability vs. news reporting, but I want more time to think about it before I weigh in again. --InkSplotch 12:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC) With more time to think, and much expansion on the article in question, I'm please to change my view to keep as more disparate sources have been added to solidify this incident's claim to notability. --InkSplotch 20:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment does the NTSB do formal investigations regarding all runway incursion incidents? If so, probably not notable. If not, the fact that it is doing so in this case may indicate some more significance than a run-of-the-mill incident. Carlossuarez46 18:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  As I understand it, all incidents must be reported to NTSB but the depth of investigations are based on severity. A preliminary report has been filed, but it gives no weight to the importance of this incident over the 154 other reports filed in May. I expect the final report will be no different...it looks like a routine filing to me. --InkSplotch 19:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The NTSB only actively investigates a select few accidents and incidents. From Ref 2: "We investigate probably just a handful (of incursions) a year." So we have additional info from the NTSB categorizing this as more notable than the other 154. Dhaluza 09:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the above. Aviation accidents are typically notable by virtue, but close misses are not. Unless notability can be demonstrated it should not be kept. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I don't agree with alot of arguments here; this runway incursion would be considered "Severity A" - the highest - where Separation was decreased and participants took extreme action to avoid a collision. The NTSB does do formal investigations regarding all runway incursion incidents, however only a few will generate a full-length report, as will probably happen in this case (based on severity and the use of the improved AMASS system). A full report generally indicates notability, as it reflects and analyzes the severity of the incident, the safety issues uncovered, and the safety recommendations subsequently issued. Near misses are often notable; fatalities, injuries or damage to aircraft are not a requirement for improvements in aviation safety. That having been said, yes I do think WP:NOT#NEWS (the article reads essentially as a Wikinews article), and WP:NOT#CRYSTAL (don't know what the Final Report, if any, will say) do apply here, and perhaps until the report is issued or other factual information develops it would best be merged with the AMASS article. I've wavered back and forth several times though, and want to try to work on the article over the next few days to see if I can change my mind again. Lipsticked Pig 21:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! Please look at the article now; I think it show obvious sign of notability Lipsticked Pig 01:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. I don't think notability of an incursion or near-miss is assured unless the NTSB (or other organization, for near-misses outside the US) prepares a full report. Independent non-trivial third parties tend to take notice of full reports and discuss them, which is why incidents that have received a full report are generally considered notable. But right now it's a bit crystal-balling to say whether the NTSB will make a full report on this. --Charlene 21:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agreed with you entirely, but now its clear to me that this is going to generate a full report Lipsticked Pig 02:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree that WP Aviation accident/incident articles must wait for a full accident report. This may or may not be true, depending on the available information. TWA 800 was notable immediately, even though the report came years later. The article can grow over time as information is released once the notability threshold is reached. Dhaluza 09:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, notability seems marginal at best. Unfortunately such incidents are too common to be of encyclopedic importance. --Dhartung | Talk 22:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Airport Movement Area Safety System, subject isn't notable enough for an article, but is relevant to the AMASS article as a case where it worked. --Rory096 00:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete right now it's news, it's unclear what if any relationship to AMASS there will be (wait for the report), the AMASS went off, but whether that improved anything is unknown- it may even have made things worse; wait for the report. My gut feel is that this is too nitty-gritty to be encyclopedic, encyclopedias are usually more concerned with broader-brush issues, where people died or where there was greater drama or where there was major ramifications. This seems to be a primary sourced data item.WolfKeeper 01:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't really seem to even meet the notability guidelines suggested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force#Notability guidelines? let alone more general standards of notability. Seems much more suited to Wikinews. --Stormie 01:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment it does, because the controller was severely reprimanded. Dhaluza 09:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Katie Couric must secretly visit Wikipedia, for a similar incident was on the CBS Evening News tonight. What's telling is that there have been 186 incidents in the U.S. in the first half of 2007, an average of one every day, which is why we can't have an article about every single one. Mandsford 01:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not for every one, but "the most serious incident of its kind in at least a decade" probably deserves an article. Lipsticked Pig 02:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is basically an airport traffic jam. No collision, no injuries, nothing to see here. Resolute 04:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Body count is only one component of notability. Not all fatal accidents are notable, and not all non-injury accidents are not. It depends on the circumstances, and what the sources say about it's relevance. Dhaluza 09:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete is this a joke?--Sefringle^Talk 05:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't a vote, and that isn't a reason for deletion Lipsticked Pig 17:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep From the second reference as quoted in the article: "Federal Aviation Administration officials are calling a near-collision at San Francisco International Airport the most serious incident of its kind at the airport in at least a decade." That is prima facia claim of notability. We have two independent sources, the FAA and NTSB (which are completely independent), commenting on the severity of the incident, quoted in reliable published sources, so this meets the standard for WP:N. Also the controller was forced to recertify for their job, which would count as a severe reprimand, as outlined in the draft notability standards previously posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#Notability guidelines? Dhaluza 09:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This was a very near miss, and the aircraft involved were imperiled. The FAA quote Dhaluza gives above show that this incident is very serious, and therefore notable in the history of US aviation safety. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though borderline. Since it was a Category A incursion and listed as the most serious of its kind within a decade, that gives it some claim of notability. It doesn't appear on the NTSB list of major investigations, though, but it adds some context to the Airport Movement Area Safety System article. Without AMASS, this could have been a fatal accident. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As noted by Wolfkeeper above, AMASS might have almost caused an accident. So far its been established that, alerted by a warning from AMASS, the controller yelled at the SkyWest to stop, and it stopped right in the path of the Republic jet. Lipsticked Pig 17:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Although ultimately nothing happened, this kind of potentially tragic event is sufficiently rare to be noteworthy. Plus, if we keep articles about the 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion or the George W. Bush pretzel incident, this one should be kept too. :) --Targeman 20:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Refs demonstrate it is an important case in the study of airport runway safety. --Oakshade 00:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable. Everyking 00:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but only because the FAA says that it is "the most serious incident of its kind in at least a decade". This implies a degree of notability. Axl 08:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; "the most serious incident of its kind in at least a decade".--Prosfilaes 15:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep FAA commentary shows the seriousness and notability of this incident.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, only because the FAA calls it the most serious incident of its kind in over a decade. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:38, 19 July 2007 (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.