Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virgin Atlantic Flight 024

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 for deletion. Editors disagree whether coverage is routine or lasting, and whether the sources contain sigcov or not, in roughly equal numbers for each side. No strong indication that a more targetted merge discussion to Airbus A340 will be supported by the keep !voters, but that could be a next step here. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Virgin Atlantic Flight 024

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Virgin Atlantic Flight 024 (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)

Minor aviation incident, no serious injuries or fatalities, not a hull loss, no impact on aviation regulations or the air transportation system generally; in summary, no WP:LASTING impact. The incident can be adequately discussed in the Heathrow Airport and Airbus A340 articles (perhaps tellingly, there is no mention of the incident in either article as I write this). Carguychris (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Carguychris (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• keep This is a clear incident with wounded people. The Banner talk 22:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi User:The Banner, can you expand a bit beyond direct impacts, here injuries sustained plus damage both to the vessel and to Heathrow Airport? gidonb (talk) 01:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Routine airline mechanical incident that resulted in no deaths or serious injuries, plus WP:NOTNEWS. "Wounded people" is certainly not a viable rationale for keeping the article. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 23:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Per WP:PERSISTENCE, for example in: [1.] A Sociology of Commercial Flight Crew, By Bennett Simon, 2016 (originally 2006), Publisher: Taylor & Francis. [2.] The Virgin Way: Everything I Know About Leadership, By Richard Branson, 2014. Publisher: Penguin. [3.] Virgin Atlantic, By John Balmforth, 2009. Publisher: Midland. Item #1 is even a WP:CASESTUDY. gidonb (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Gidonb: Could you give more iformation so we can locate the sources, and if possible, check them out for ourselves? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

User:LaundryPizza03, of course! Thanks for asking! It's all through Google Books. gidonb (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• Weak Delete There is this: [1], not certain about reliability. Otherwise it's just routine day-by-day reporting, no WP:LASTING. All other information found is either mundane database entries or trivial. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, wow! Great find! That's already 4 cases of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, this time from 2024! How does such persistent coverage correspond with your conclusion? gidonb (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

SimpleFlying is NOT a reliable source - see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#SimpleFlying.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

By WP:NEXIST, there is absolutely no lack of sources. Exactly why nom did not raise that. Rather, the question is whether the importance of this event was temporary or is WP:LASTING. Hence, also this fourth and very detailed source carries weight, in addition to the other three, as it proves that the interest in this event continues to date. For that purpose (only) the quality of the publication is of little or no relevance. gidonb (talk) 10:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

SimpleFlying does not count towards notability because it isn't reliable - the guideline that you quote does not say that non-reliable sources count for notability - you need to show significant coverage in reliable sources - for the three book sources, there needs to be significant coverage (ie. not just passing mention) - do they show that?Nigel Ish (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Coverage in Simon does not seem to be very extensive - a mention that the incident occured and discussion about how British tabloid newspapers said nice things about the pilot (in a discussion about how flight crew behaviour in accidents and near-misses. Similarly, Branson's book merely talks about how Branson entertained the flight crew on his private island after the incident - again - not really significant coverag. I can't see the Balmforth source.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

While not all these statements hold water, I will refer you to my previous answer that had already covered the gist of these arguments. gidonb (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per the sources found by gidonb. Whether people were killed/injured/wounded are made up criteria that have nothing to do with notability and are not considered in a valid close. I would not object to a merge to one of the articles mentioned by Carguychris per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Airbus A340#Accidents or Heathrow Airport#Incidents and accidents. A standalone article is not warranted: the sources found do not meet WP:SIGCOV, and the accident fails WP:EVENT.Rosbif73 (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep. I'll AGF on the sources given by gidonb. S5A-0043^Talk 09:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect The sources given cannot be classified as significant coverage as they are only brief and passing mentions. No evidence of lasting effects and in general, fails the event criteria. If this were to close as a redirect, I would suggest a redirect to Virgin Atlantic#Incidents and accidents. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete No need to redirect, IMO, because the incident is covered in Airbus_A340#Accidents, and that's all that is needed. I agree that the Simon book appears to have a mention, but not significant coverage. The Readers Digest coverage seems to be the most extensive, but such a source cannot alone establish GNG. Lamona (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep The sources given by gidonb, the Reader's Digest article as well as The Standard, The Guardian, BBC have given coverage, well past 1997. Regardless of how the incident may be, I'm certain that this article shouldn't be deleted on grounds of WP:GNG. Not to mention the landing gear recommendations given to Airbus with this incident. GalacticOrbits (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • People keep mentioning a Readers Digest article - what reference is this? - as far as I can tell, none of the references are from Reader's Digest.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It's in Google Books, and I recall having seen the RD version excerpted somewhere (here?) in a religious magazine. It may be above but I'm not seeing it. Lamona (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)]

Ah, I usually use DuckDuckGo and not Google so that's where it came up: RD. It's from 2004. Lamona (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to comment, The Standard's article only briefly mentions Flight 24. Most of the article talks about the emergency landing of a Virgin Atlantic Boeing 747. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Sources have been found above that seem to indicate both notability and lasting impact. Would also support closing as it seems unlikely that this discussion will yield a consensus towards deletion. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete per WP:notnews. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 04:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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.