Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Airways Flight 2276

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 speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British Airways Flight 2276

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

I feel slightly bad nominating this for AfD so quickly after its creation, but from what I can see this looks to be a fairly non-notable incident on a flight. No one was seriously injured and no one died, so this looks to be fairly routine coverage of what's ultimately a pretty minor incident. I don't really think that this merits an article at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is a minor incident, or a major setback for RollsRoyce Trent engine manufacturer remains to be seen. I would ask the nominator to withdraw the nomination at this time. We can kill it later, and for now use it to gather technical info not served by the news sources, to be folded into the British Airways article. This is also the same type of aircraft which disappeared for as yet unexplained reasons over the Indian Ocean Flight MH370. --Mareklug ^talk 04:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's something to do with the plane type then we could always merge it into the article for the specific type of plane or manufacturer. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a significant aviation event as it is the first fire in service for a General Electric-powered 777 (this was actually a GE90-powered example) that would result in a hull loss. - AEMoreira042281 (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage for this is fairly light, though- if it is really significant there would be more coverage out there. The fire was contained and no one was killed, so it seems to be a fairly minor incident overall. The coverage seems fairly routine. Also, if this is notable simply because of the type of plane, then this could probably be merged to the article for the plane. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it already classified as "hull loss". The BBC news web report has the airport saying fire put out in five minutes from call, and its still intact. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly, more details need to be added to this article, but I do not think it deserves to be deleted. This emergency stands in stark contrast to British Airtours 28M that suffered severe engine failure during take-off, aborted the take-off and pulled of the runway, similar to this, but where many of the passengers died. I think the contrast is significant. Nutster (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable for the highly unusual nature of the event. (sdsds - talk) 05:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did you see the pictures? Engine billowing smoke, big fire, plane probably a write-off, full evacuation. Engine fires like this are no joke. Very serious, major coverage in all news outlets.New Media Theorist (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now per AEMoreira042281 and New Media Theorist. Most of the time, a seemingly non-notable aviation incident translates into something even bigger. After all, many of them later become precedents for future aviation rules. If neither of this happens, we can renominate for AfD later. In my opinion, it's better to see where this goes than to just outright delete it in the beginning. Gparyani (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly a notable aviation incident when a modern commercial aircraft has a hull-loss fire with full use of evacuation slides even BEFORE takeoff. Early hours yet: likely there will be much broader/deeper media coverage to come. AfD nomination was excessively hasty. Ian Page (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I feel like this AfD was too hasty. Due to the amount of press coverage on this topic, it is likely someone will search this topic up and find this article, which has a rather unsightly deletion notice at the top. I think this would attract even more press coverage into this discussion, and could portray our community in a negative light. So not only does my "keep" !vote still apply, but I think that this AfD should be closed early for this reason. (Note that I mistakenly tagged this article as a hoax minutes before reliable sources started covering it, and I've since realized my mistake.) Gparyani (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - At the very least, this incident appears to be similar to Air France Flight 358, in that it involved a rapid and successful evacuation of a burning widebodied aircraft, and may therefore provide significant guidance for the conduct of future such evacuations. The evacuation in the BA incident can also be contrasted with the much less successful evacuation in Asiana Airlines Flight 214, which was from a very similar aircraft. In that regard, there has already been substantial social media discussion of the fact that so many of the passengers in the BA incident took their cabin baggage with them, contrary to the received wisdom as to how evacuations should be carried out. Bahnfrend (talk) 07:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Ok, I'll withdraw. I still don't see where this is notable enough for an article and I think that a lot of the keep arguments here are based on WP:CRYSTAL (most of you are arguing that it'll likely be notable based on coverage that has yet to happen), but it doesn't look like this would close as a delete or a merge. I still think that at best, this was too soon for an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable enough to make headline news. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2015 (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.