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.

Closure overturned at DRV; relisted at AfD. Non-administrators should never close discussions this early. Xoloz 15:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep, obvious consensus here. I should also echo the fact that bringing a brand-new article to AfD isn't usually a good idea. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SkyWest Airlines flight 5741

[edit]

Non-notable plane crash. No injuries. No sources, though the bottom half of the article, at least, looks as if it was copied from somwhere (some extraneous footer material left bedhind), though I have been unable to find the source. What makes this incident encyclopedia article worthy? Corvus cornix 22:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is it usual practice to AfD an article after only 2 edits, and only ONE minute after it's creation? I'm sorry, but the creator made 19 edits after that within the first 40 minutes, and addressed most of your concerns. The nominator should be investigated to see if such knee-jerk nominations are his usual method of operation. Perhaps he should be assigned to hand copy the WP:AGF guidleine 100 times. :) Seriously, Wikipedia is always a wrok in progress, and sufficient time should be allowed for an editor to complete what he started in a reasonable omount of time. One minute is certainly not reasonalbe. - - BillCJ 23:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many notable aircraft incidents (such as British Airways Flight 9) resulted in zero injuries and zero fatalities. A similar incident occurred in the 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion. Of course inclusion is not an indicator of notability, but in the context of airline incidents, I think it's probably notable if the NTSB plans to publish an official report. Shalom ^Hello 22:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very serious runway incursion. Please see also the draft notability guidlines at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force (I apreciate that, as a work in progress, they don't yet directly state whether this is notable or not, but the general spread of what is and isn't notable there should show that this is within notable boundarys). 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion previously survived AfD (I created it back when I was a noob, and I still was at AfD time...) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After the creator actually finished his initial edits, notability was established. Borderline, yes, but also notable in that it's a warning of what could happen. Repercussions of this should be felt for awhile, as it's not even been 6 weeks since it happened. - BillCJ 23:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per concensus. Ranma9617 00:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for several reasons: first, this appears to be a bad-faith nomination. Nominator didn't take the time to look into whether this was genuinely a notable incident. No discussion was attempted to see what the situation was. I try hard to assume good faith, but my threshold is when bad faith is blatantly demonstrated. Now, about the article itself...runway incursions are very serious incidents which have been a focus of the aviation safety community for some time now. The fact that one was prevented by the AMASS system definitely makes this one notable. The combined name of the article, though needs to be addressed when this is all over. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as outlined above. I feel that the guidelines for notability proposed by the aviation task force are acceptable. I also feel that the current revision has addressed most of Corvus cornix's issues with the article. Trusilver 02:18, 6 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.