Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Connection Flight 4819

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 WP:SNOW keep. There is zero possibility of any other consensus forming at this time, given an overwhelming turnout favoring keeping the article, and reasonable bases in sourcing and policy offered for that consensus. BD2412 T 23:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Connection Flight 4819

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Delta Connection Flight 4819 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS: while this has gotten a significant amount of news coverage, a landing error resulting in zero fatalities and only a few injuries is not particularly notable and will likely not have a lasting impact. Either support deletion or a very selective merge of some details to 2024–25 North American winter#Fifth storm (February 13–present). Elli (talk | contribs) 21:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. Based purely on WP:RS, there is more than enough news coverage discussing this event for it to meet WP:GNG. But this hasn't stopped similar articles from being deleted. Of course, given this happened less than three hours ago, it remains to be seen if this receives any kind of WP:LASTING coverage. guninvalid (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I should also declare that I was one of the original creators of this page. Actually, I created this particular page but it went through a couple moves and merges into what it is by now. guninvalid (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other plane crashes with 0 fatalities have articles (such as US Airways 1549), so why delete this one on the grounds of "no deaths"? 2607:FEA8:11A2:A300:CC25:306D:DB35:4C19 (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
US Airways 1549 was a water ditching that went famous, and had a short film and tv episodes with it. Way different. But I agree, not everything is about deaths. And, we don't know if anyone died yet. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Nominated far too quickly. In addition since it is a hull loss, it will probably keep notoriety as many accidents with no injuries but a hull loss were included so it makes little sense for it to be deleted. Nagito Komaeda the Second (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plus there will be an investigation; there may also be a Mayday episode about it in the future; after all, a mildly-botched landing doesn't end up with the plane upside down and at least the tail ripped off. Deleting it would be a decision based on bias and not considering the existence of many other articles covering accidents of similar magnitude or media attention. 2607:FEA8:11A2:A300:CC25:306D:DB35:4C19 (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The possible future existence of a TV episode is not a reason to keep an article, and honestly neither is the existence of a future investigation. Pretzelles (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Postpone pre WP:TOOSOON. And, zero fatalities and only a few injuries shouldn't be definition of WP:N. Awdqmb (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep What a bad nomination. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, we should wait before nominating, a hull loss without deaths is still somewhat noteworthy, especially one from a US carrier. There will likely be an investigation considering the hull loss, this isn’t a typical botched landing. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 21:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep because the crash is a hull loss accident of a major commercial airline. --ゴミバコ (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep because it’s a serious accident/hull loss involving a major airline. Numerous accidents of similar notability and severity have articles, such as Delta Air Lines Flight 1086. SchindHaughton (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / wait Similar landing incidents involving severe damage to the aircraft and injuries, for example Air Canada Flight 624, have articles. And I would argue the plane flipping and having a wing ripped off is quite significant. As it's only just happened I think its too early to tell decide to delete. George24957848907 (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is far too soon to determine if this article should be kept or deleted. Any decision should be delayed until there is more concrete information regarding the incident. Even so, a hull loss in a dramatic enough fashion to attract significant media attention should be noteworthy enough. 146.217.3.23 (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Multiple people, including the nominator, have pointed out that there have been no deaths. I have some thoughts that border on assuming bad faith so I'll keep those to myself. But more importantly, Wikiproject Aviation has the essay WP:AIRCRASH, which argues that incidents involving death or hull loss should be considered notable enough for inclusion in broader articles. This doesn't necessarily mean it's notable enough for a whole article (WP:AIRCRASH explicitly is not meant for AfDs, so we would need WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT) but it does mean that by consensus among Wikiproject Aviation, this event is at least notable enough for inclusion on broader articles. Fatalities are a factor, yes, but hull loss counts too. guninvalid (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The damage and injuries make it significant enough. Dw31415 (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fatalities and injuries should not be the only defining factor of an article meeting Wikipedia:Notability. I am well versed in aviation accidents and there are plenty of notable articles that do not feature fatalities or injuries because the incident itself was noteworthy and uncommon. While this particular incident may not be as significant as something such as US Airways Flight 1549. In my case, I believe this article is particularly notable due to how the accident occurred, the aircraft being flipped upside-down, missing wings, missing landing gear, while being operated by Endeavor Air dba Delta Connection being a major operator in the United States, and the aircraft being a large regional jet. This is a very uncommon incident in the aviation world and it's extremely rare to see an incident like this which in itself should make it noteworthy. MSWDEV (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: It definitely seems ridiculous to me that an article could only be considered "notable" if people died. That seems cruel. The way this accident occurred, the outcome, and the fact there are (seemingly) no deaths is notable in itself for air safety. Like you said, it's extremely rare and that therefore makes it notable. 4rft5 (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP
There have been similar air accidents which have Wikipedia pages, such as Belavia Flight 1834. As other commentors have mentioned, the damage to the aircraft was severe. LucsLee (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC) — LucsLee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 22:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The accident is notable as it will absolutely result in the hull loss of an aircraft operated by a major carrier while in revenue service. This is in unusual event and it is not at all unusual to have articles about non fatal yet serious accidents. ASA 1282, Korean 631, AF 358, etc. TacitMoose (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Way too soon to deterine if this should be kept or deleted. Insanityclown1 (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks Removed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Strong Keep Are you people out of your minds? It's a major airliner hull loss incident in North America. Obviously this is highly notable. This ridiculous discussion is not worth the time and bandwidth already wasted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:6FC6:D4B8:8B2:8EFF:C208:F306 (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this is similar to Delta Air Lines Flight 1086 in terms of impact (nobody died, several injuries, plane destroyed), so I think since DL1086 has an article, 9E4819 should reasonably have one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GigaG (talk • contribs) 22:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Major carrier involved in a major incident at a major airport is worthy an article. It’s a major incident due to the fact it flipped over and resulted in numerous injuries. It’s a near certainty the aircraft will have to be written off. Just because no one died doesn’t downplay the severity of the wreck, an airliner flipping just after landing could had resulted in a much more tragic result. Straykat99 (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep Concur for these exact reasons. Was honestly shocked to find out there was any amount of debate to begin with. Apstockholm (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleting this article would seem like over-moderation. As previously proven, a lack of fatalities do not automatically constitute as lacking notability, as several other notable non-fatal incidents such as Continental Airlines Flight 1404 are also existing articles. Additionally, this was an actual crash, not just a small incident such as a mild engine failure or tire blowout.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.218.2 (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: While an argument could be made for draftifying the article, I don't think that would improve its state. This was a major incident with multiple casualties and, as mentioned above, it appears to be a hull loss, so we're definitely going to get more sources and the article will likely improve rapidly. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:08, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep. Hull loss of large aircraft, therefore automatically notable. First such crash at Canada’s largest airport since 2005. 2604:7A40:2041:8900:E1C1:E814:ABF9:D3C (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The plane's hull is beyond repair. Gladly nobody died.but since when deads are criteria for articles? --Matthiasb (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Normally I'd say "delete" because secondary sources can't possibly exist (it's so recent that all sources are primary), but major accidents, even without fatalities, get investigated by relevant aviation authorities, and the investigations are concluded with the publication of a detailed, highly reliable source, and it's necessarily secondary. Nyttend (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least wait and see. Incidents with no fatalities are one thing, but I think that the dramatic nature of this incident will increase coverage well beyond the point of what we'd need for general notability (if that hasn't happened already) Ryan shell (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Delta_Connection_Flight_4819&oldid=1276288046"