Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flightline Flight 101

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. Some of the opinions to keep are weak, but there is a narrow consensus there is sustained coverage in the accident beyond 2001. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flightline Flight 101

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

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated, which is made all the more evident as the Civil Aviation Accident and Incident Investigation Commission did not issue a single recommendation as a result of this accident (Recomendaciones sobre seguridad – page 23). WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks per the above. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Spain. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:News article. Not a WP:CASESTUDY or otherwise subject to any secondary coverage that indicates long-term significance. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner § Accidents and incidents: This article lacks reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, and its WP:LASTING effects are also bare bones. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of secondary sources online. Per WP:NEXISTS, it does not matter if they are not used in the article. MarioGom (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There was extensive contemporary coverage in reliable sources back in the day (2001), virtually on every Spanish newspaper. There was a newspaper piece on it published in 2013, so there was sustained coverage [1]. MarioGom (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’d lean towards keeping but are there more post-2001 sources? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not many. There's follow up news about the investigation in 2004 [2], and passing mentions in articles about similar incident in 2014 [3][4], but these last 2 are not that relevant. MarioGom (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like an important accident, useful to have for historic reference. Sources brought by MarioGom. Ornithorynque liminaire (talk) 20:21, 12 May 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.