Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 01:06, 5 February 2023

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. MBisanz 03:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

2005 Logan Airport runway incursion

2005 Logan Airport runway incursion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

WP:NOT#NEWS - A runway incursion happens when two airplanes become close to each other on the runway. Both of the airplanes took off hitting each other and there weren't even any injuries or damage. Also, runway incursions happen all the time. I don't see how this one is more notable than most incursions. We need to draw the line somewhere. If this one is kept, what's next? Near car accidents? Near train collisions? etc. Misplaced Pages is not a news sources, it isn't supposed to have every news story that an editor decides to write about.Tavix (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, the event is given the notice it requires on a very small article on the award, and any other mention can happen in the Logan article. I am a little put off that this happened at my most travelled through airport, though! SGGH 23:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Although I frown on the aviation geekery where someone creates an article every time there's an incident, this was a situation where a Tenerife type collision was avoided because of the quick action of the USAir pilot, who realized the tower's mistake as his jet was accelerating down the runway for takeoff -- at 167 miles per hour no less, according to the Boston Globe investigative report ; and he stopped about 60 yards from the other jet, which was going 198 mph. There's a good reason that the two airplanes took off without hitting each other. If you want to draw the line, draw it at those articles where the risk and the consequences were low, such as those "the-passengers-used-the-slides" incidents. Mandsford (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Reply "Where the consequences were low". On a runway incursions, there are barely any consquences. No injuries, deaths, damage, etc., just a near miss. Sure it had to be investigated because the ATC didn't do their job, but that for WikiNews, not an encyclopedia. Tavix (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I find it odd that this is in some people's view more notable than the fatal article above. Go figure. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I always try to avoid making ad hominem comments in discussions, but I must make an exception here and agree that by any objective standard it's incomprehensible that an editor could want to delete the article on the fatal crash in Russia but to keep this one. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep All of these aircraft accidents ought to be chronicled here on Misplaced Pages for research and investigation.Critical Chris (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Misplaced Pages is not a database of every event that happens in history, it's an encyclopedia of notable events, people, places, etc. I kind of favor the 'keep' side since it does seem to have been a very serious incident that was avoided. Misplaced Pages shouldn't be a place where only sensationalist incidents and accidents are reported but also a place where notable misses like this that did result in warnings and changes as well as commendations are noted. That being said, the article's seriously lacking reliable sources with the exception of a couple of investigative reports, so it's questionable how the notability of the incident is actually proven in the article. NcSchu_(Talk) 14:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - The ol' fictional WP:MUST BE DEATHS policy. This was a very serious incident. It's not me saying that but the Air Line Pilots Association, International. They gave the US Airways captain the "Superior Airmanship Award" as well as calling it a "very serious incident".--Oakshade (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Reply Please re-read my nomination, I did not say there had to be deaths to make it notable. I am saying that it isn't suitable for Misplaced Pages as it is a news story. Tavix (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Your response to Mandsford read "No injuries, deaths, damage, etc." --Oakshade (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Which was just an example because he mentioned the consequences of the "incident". I did not refer to no deaths as my policy for deletion. My policy for deletion is WP:NOT#NEWS. Tavix (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking back on it, my choice of words was poor. In saying "consequences", I meant the potential damage rather than actual damage. In the case of one plane almost bumping into another as they're waiting for takeoff, the chances of an accident and the potential damage would both be low; in the case of a pilot avoiding a the collision of two jets that are both accelerating to the same intersection, the chances of a collision would be high and the potential damages would be high. I agree with Tavix that most of these Misplaced Pages articles about an NTSB incident should be deleted, but I submit that there are some instances where a near disaster would qualify -- the factors being how close one came to disaster and how bad the disaster would have been. Mandsford (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks for the clarification, that assessment makes a lot more sense. I can see where your coming from with that, but I'm looking at it from a different angle where if no actual damage took place, I don't see a reason for a Misplaced Pages article. Tavix (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep near disasters can also have notable consequences and be notable - we have an article, but I can't put my finger on it about the plane that ran out of fuel but landed safely on Tenerife or Azores or somewhere thereabouts. No one died; notable anyway. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Per a number of comments made here pointing to the serious and rare risk of collision and per multiple previous AfDs (I will link to some later, but am short of time ATM, although this article itself survived once before on no consensus at time when far less was getting past AfD than now). In particular, while incursions are common, incursions where two aircraft try to take off into each other are pretty rare. Most involve something crossing the runway miles away, a takeoff aborted in good time to avoid a baggage train, something like that. Blood Red Sandman 07:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• To fill in, the previous related AfDs are Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/SkyWest Airlines flight 5741, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2007 San Francisco International Airport runway incursion (same article under new title as old was closed too early) and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/1999 T. F. Green Airport runway incursion, as well as the original AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Runway incursion between US Airways flight 1170 and Aer Lingus flight 132 for this article. I would strongly advise editors to read through these debates before commenting. Blood Red Sandman 18:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - sources are satisfactory to allow creation of an article. WilyD 12:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Ineffective delete, Misplaced Pages is not the news. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I see a lot of opinions in this discussion but no arguments based on the existence or non-existence of significant coverage by reliable sources, apart from news coverage in the immediate aftermath of the incident. It would be useful if those who want to keep this could provide such sources, and those who want to delete could indicate where they have looked for sources and been unable to find them. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that's what all of us are planning to do this weekend. Mandsford (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This is an amazing story for anyone who remembers the Tenerife disaster in 1977. It's also an interesting article from the point of view of aviation safety and heroism. So what that it only has two sources; one of them is the NTSB report and that is a very reliable reference. In any case two sources is two more than many other articles have. Greg Kuperberg (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Misplaced Pages is not a four year old newspaper. KleenupKrew (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. These happen all of the time. What exactly makes this one notable, encyclopedic and not simply a news item? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I would encourage anyone voting "keep" or "delete" to take a moment to read the article. Mandsford (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I've done that, and can't see anything in it to persuade me either way - there are no secondary sources cited giving substantial coverage, which would be needed for a "keep", but I accept that there is a fair chance that such sources exist, so I'm not going to say "delete". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep While runway incursions are "common", and often are featured in the news media, that does not make this any less noteworthy. This was a very severe incident, and certainly deserves to be documented as such. --KPWM_Spotter (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2009 (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.