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. This can be revisited in a few months to determine if, for example, the incident has received ongoing coverage and analysis as per WP:SUSTAINED, or conversely, if a lack of said ongoing coverage and analysis is evident, then WP:NOTNEWS may be applicable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Article has been moved by someone, now at ASL Airlines Hungary Flight 7332. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the AfD to match the new title of the page. Class455 (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ASL Airlines Hungary Flight 7332 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Minor aviation incident. Runway overruns are very common. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No one was even injured, nor did that crash seem to pose any threat to anyone else at that moment. I really can't see how this would be notable even in the short-term. Parsley Man (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep – The runway overruns are not really that common for commercial airliners. This incident is pretty similar to Southwest Airlines Flight 1455 and Southwest Airlines Flight 1248 incidents and especially since a fair amount of damage has been sustained (possibly even a hull loss) it deserves its inclusion. cherkash (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Runway overruns are very common: TAP Portugal Flight 425, American Airlines Flight 1420, Southwest Airlines Flight 1455, Lion Air Flight 538, Garuda Indonesia Flight 200, Air Canada Flight 189, China Eastern Airlines Flight 5398, TAM Airlines Flight 3054, American Airlines Flight 331, Red Wings Airlines Flight 9268, Air India Express Flight 812, TAM Airlines Flight 3054, Delta Air Lines Flight 1086. 80.2.106.75 (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Compared to the sheer number of successful daily commercial flights, any incident is uncommon. Also interesting to note: of the 12 flights listed above (TAM Airlines Flight 3054 is listed twice), 11 were passenger flights, and the other one (Red Wings Airlines Flight 9268) was a was a repositioning flight by a passenger airline. Sario528 (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Totally non-notable with no serious consequences or changes to procedures, legislation etc. etc. Fails WP.GNG--Petebutt (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not significant event. -Varmapak ^(talk) 18:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Cherkash. - EugεnS¡m¡on 20:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a relatively minor accident with no fatalities and a cargo flight with just 2 persons onboard, thus unlikely to receive a significant coverage in reliable sources. Could be merged to 2016 in aviation, for example. Brandmeister^talk 18:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Sorry to say, but a plane with a small runway overrun with no fatalities is not going to significant to Wikipedia, especially after... 5-10 years. All other runway overruns on Wikipedia actually have a significance. Get Air France Flight 358, for example. The accident was (and still is, but in smaller numbers) widely noticed in Canada for having a serious Airbus A340 accident with no fatalities. TAM Airlines Flight 3054, on the other hand, is widely noticed for being the deadliest aviation accident in Brazil (as of 8 August 2016). However, this crash, really doesn't show significance, it's just an incident with no major significance. Redolta📱 ^Contribs 00:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note This AFD was closed a few hours ago as "The result was Delete per WP:SNOWBALL". However, the consensus at the ANI discussion here is that this was premature, so I've reopened this AFD discussion. It's only been closed 10 hours or so, so I think it's fine to leave it in the 8/5 log, and not restart the AFD from scratch. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - this was an unusual event in Europe, not every day an big airplane lands in the middle of a highway. It could end very bad if in that time there were people in cars. Gsvadds (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the event itself should be notable enough to sustain an article as the aircraft is almost certainly a write-off. That it was a freighter and not a passenger aircraft should not be a deciding factor. However, if people do not care enough to write decent articles when there are plenty of sources available to do so, such as this article, it is very difficult to argue that the article shows said notability. Mjroots (talk) 06:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Improve - the article as it stands describes a non-notable event that fits WP:SNOWBALL. This AfD discussion contains more information about the event, than the article itself. Without any evidence or even statements backing up the arguments in this discussion (all of which are uncited), the article is an easy delete: we're not here to catalogue every low-impact excursion, especially of DHL flights. If this isn't a routine cargo flight excursion, the article is completely misrepresentative. Leondz (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - improved, well-sourced; hull loss of a major aircraft, very unusual, likely to lead to operational changes. Leondz (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep (an update to the vote above) – The article was clearly created as a stub for a subsequent expansion. As mentioned, the event itself is notable enough and deserved its article per notability criteria. Mjroots has pretty much said this above. There are already plenty notable sources such as Guardian, etc. mentioning the event and its aftermath. So let's keep and expand rather than arguing that the length of the article itself is too short (this can easily be fixed, and most certainly will be in the near future, by myself and other editors). The length of the article itself should not be grounds for deletion, especially for a new article! cherkash (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Addition – The article has been further expanded with details added. Clearly, as the event is very recent, some details will only be becoming available in the months to come. cherkash (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You have voted twice, so I've took the liberty to strike the second vote. Brandmeister^talk 07:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve- Aircraft was written off, so seems notable to me, however it is in need of some improvement. Class455 (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, both as WP:NOTNEWS, and because such events are neither particularly unusual, nor particularly interesting. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable accident with no injuries, consequences, meaningful/notable changes to procedures. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS etc. etc. etc..--Petebutt (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - article has been improved since I commented earlier, but it could still be a lot better. Mjroots (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Agree, the article needs further updates and revisions, as new information becomes available. Please also note that quality of an article has nothing to do with notability; in this case, the event is notable and this is a strong enough reason to keep it, regardless of the current quality of the article. cherkash (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While it does appear that the incident received some coverage in reliable independent sources, there is nothing about this event that seems to make it worthy of being the subject of a standalone article. Yes, a plane had a bad landing; yes, this was reported in some newspapers, mostly because the photographs of it appear to be dramatic. Does that fact warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia? Unless the incident is being shown related to a larger series of accidents by this carrier, or someone was injured or killed, or something meaningful changed as a result, then... Why? Because it "happened"? That doesn't seem a convincing argument to retain it. KDS4444 (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- I can see a few reasons why the accident is significant:

• There was bad weather and late at night. A lot of discussion is taking place about pilot work hours and training, both of which may (or may not) be contributors in the accident. Recording this accident is interesting in that context. It would be interesting to see the decision making.
• There was a write-off and substantial property damage. There was a significant amount of excess energy involved (stopping 520 meters past the runway), not quite a wheel coming off a taxiway into grass.
• Accidents like this are infrequent, especially in Europe. Aviation safety in Europe is generally regarded as being very good. Global aviator (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think we have to draw the line at crashes where no one is hurt. Every single fatal car crash is arguably more notable and important than this. Herostratus (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2016 (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.