Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loganair Flight 6780

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. (despite no further participation) I don't think relisting will do any good, and the keep side is much more firmly rooted in policy than the contrary. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loganair Flight 6780

[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)

(1) WP:NOTNEWS, no evidence that this event has any lasting historical significance, (2) Fails WP:GNG. — Johnnie Bob (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article was WP:PRODded on 16 May 2021 by User:CommanderWaterford, citing WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG, and subsequently deleted on 23 May 2021. Article was re-created by User:Davon_Wijaya in substantially the same form on 25 May 2021. Johnnie Bob (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article itself may need work, but this incident despite being non-fatal has already shown to have lasting significance, such as its use as a case study in a research project by the EASA in 2018[1], an article by Flight Safety Australia also in 2018[2], not to mention a Mayday/Air Crash Investigation episode this year. ThatFlyingSquid (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I did a basic cleanup to correct some essential facts. Loganair#Accidents and incidents already covers the incident better. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep A quick search shows multiple articles were written about it, and it even got a Mayday/Air Crash Investigation episode dedicated to it. That meets "historical significance" for me. Uses x (talk • contribs) 22:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Surely this ought to be mentioned under Incidents and Accidents at Sumburgh Airport? Maybe I'll do it myself. Athel cb (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I now have. Athel cb (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If a Mayday episode was made. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply because it shows signs of persistent coverage. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mayday is an entertainment programe and really is not an indication of importance or persistance. MilborneOne (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is significant, independent, and reliable coverage which can be used under WP:GNG and other notability guidelines. Jumpytoo Talk 04:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a particularly noteworthy incident for a stand alone article, already covered in the Loganair article which is sufficient. MilborneOne (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major incident and near crash. The extensive AAIB report uncovered the significance of a Saab 2000 lacking an autopilot override. Incident was featured in the Mayday/Air Crash Investigation documentary series which counts as significant independent coverage. If the end result is, against my preference, to only cover the incident in the Loganair article, redirecting is far preferable to outright deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. I'm not seeing any sustaining coverage to show otherwise. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... that's not what WP:NOTNEWS is; this isn't trying to provide up-to date information, or first-hand reports. The accident happened all the way back in 2014 yet it's still notable enough to have been made the first episode in a new season of a major TV series, to have been the topic of a research project, on top of a fairly large amount of coverage at the time. Sustaining coverage isn't needed, either - see Wikipedia:NOTTEMPORARY. Uses x (talk • contribs) 02:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by FlyingSquid show that there is WP:INDEPTH and WP:DIVERSE coverage with the WP:PERSISTENCE that's needed to pass WP:NEVENT. Run of the mill incidents do not get full TV documentaries created about them. Jumpytoo Talk 04:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is already an article relating to this aviation incident in draftspace which i am currently working on, there is no need for duplicate articles. OGWFP (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OGWFP - Creating a draft article is not a rationale for requesting the deletion of an existing article. Honestly, there is no point in creating a draft version of the article when one already exists. If this article gets deleted, it's likely your draft version - if it is moved to the mainspace - will also be PROD or nominated for deletion, too. Just improve the existing article, please. Missvain (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being featured on Mayday is not enough to merit an article's creation yes. However, the AAIB report of this major in flight upset resulting in a near crash put concern over a potential design defect of the Saab 2000. If this event actually resulted in a crash, the arguments for keeping the article up would have been essentially the same. The article would need more work on it. Tntad (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm leaning towards keep, but open minded.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2021 (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.