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 keep. consensus is trending to a keep on the notability aspect JForget 01:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cathay Pacific Flight 780[edit]

Cathay Pacific Flight 780 (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)

First of all, this article should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. Second, this incident does not meet notability criteria; it is a run-of-the-mill occurrence. Aircraft engines fail reasonably often. Aircraft tyres burst even more often and a wheel fire as a result of burst tyres is not unusual. An emergency evacuation due to a wheel fire would be mandated by any airline's procedures; and the injuries sustained during the emergency evacuation are also not unusual. YSSYguy (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Actually I do not quite agree. This is really called an accident as there are dual engine failure at the same time. Also investagators from UK and US come to HK to investigate this event. Moreover, flight data recorder and all stuff was transported to UK for examination. If it is not happened in CX but in other airlines, all passengers may not have the chance to survive. So, i wonder, how can you say that this is not an accident? If you say about the notability of the passage, I agree on that and I think I will make changes on that soon. User:kelvinpiggy (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and not a directory of every minor kerfluffle on an airplane which did not result in a crash or deaths. We do not have an article for every time a tire blows on a bus, and we do not need one for every time tires blow when a plane lands, or every time an engine fails. Edison (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - completely non-notable - totally fails WP:AIRCRASH requirements. - Ahunt (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would meet A3 and L2. The type of incident may result in A2 too. SYSS Mouse (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Changing my vote on this one after reading more about it. it's already in Cathay Pacific#Incidents and accidents. I'll add the link to the incident report [1] if it isn't there already. Mandsford (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a NN aviation incident that ended with a hard landing (not a crash). Peterkingiron (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How often do you see an aircraft with BOTH ENGINE FAILURE?? Do you count BA009 as accident if you said so? It is also just engine failure and no one died! At first before the investigation you may not know what had happened, but after that it is a new history for aviation. No more aircrafts or air routes above volcanoes.Second, the incident/accident has not ended... Flight Data Recorder and all kinds of stuff is transporting to UK and US for investigations! Also if all of you said that this cannot be counted as an accident, how about Air travel disruption after the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption?? Why can this be also?? No accidents, no failure, just weather those stuff!!!kelvinpiggy (talk) 04:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a complete failure of both engines (as I read the report, Engine 2 was a 17% and Engine 1 was at 74%). The Airbus made a priority landing at its destination in Hong Kong. The injuries occurred, not because of the hard landing, but during the evacuation of the plane. I will admit that I am skeptical about aircrash articles, based on the past practice of every incident being turned into an info box and cut-and-paste of official reports, so perhaps I am wrong here. Mandsford (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright. But I want to clarify is that both engine has got failure, not both off when landing. The pilot cannot control the speed and as a result to a very high velocity landing. Also, at midair during the flights, both engines have been at least once stalled or failure but was back to normal again. Kelvinpiggy (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, notable because it is an all-engines failed incident (failed in the sense that neither was producing anything like commanded thrust per BA038). Lack of deaths does not equate to a lack of notability. Mjroots (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm changing my !vote. I think that the opening paragraph understates what happened in this instance, which was that a plane with 344 persons on board was saved through the efforts of its pilot and co-pilot in averting a catastrophe. "Hero pilots safely land jet carrying 300 passengers after both engines malfunctioned" pretty well sums up what separates this from the run-of-the-mill airline incident. Although we have, unfortunately, a group of contributors who compete to be the "first kid on the block" to fill in the blanks on the template every time there's a report of a hard landing, that's no excuse for me to prejudge an article. Good work on the part of User:Kelvinpiggy. Mandsford (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I am also changing my vote to Keep; although the article has some issues, IMO notability has now been established. YSSYguy (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not only because of notabiity established due to all engine failure, but also because being one of the safest airlines in the world this is partiularly important. SYSS Mouse (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Both engines failed, hard landing, six tires bursted, eight people were injured... yes, it certainly qualifies as a notable accident in my view. C1010 (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The type of failure was unusual, with the engines not merely failing to deliver full thrust (which wouldn't be all too uncommon), but an uncontrolled thrust increase in one engine. 201.231.173.108 (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Low or no body-count should not disqualify article. Events that occurred are also not that common.87.205.199.68 (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sufficient notability. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 14 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.