Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean Air Flight 2708

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. No consensus for a particular outcome has emerged within this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Air Flight 2708

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

Not notable aviation incident. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:EVENTCRITERIA, no suggestion of any "enduring historical significance" for this aborted flight. If it turns out to be a significant engine fault in the Boeing 777-300 series, this belongs in Boeing 777#777-300, not in an article about one day when that fault happened. --McGeddon (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep British Airways Flight 2276 was kept. This is identical. Engine failure and fire on take off on a 777. Don't understand why this needs to be deleted. (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)contribs) 11:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now Let's see how the story develops and how the airframe does Leondz (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as fires affecting modern airliners are rather rare and as mentioned above, the BA flight that caught fire in LA article (BA2276) was kept and has had many views (28,367 in the last 90 days according to wmflabs tools). Furthermore, the accident has achieved significant coverage and so I would say it is notable. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉)
Delete Not notable per WP:EVENTCRITERIA nor WP:AIRCRASH. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was leaning twords delete but other users have rightfully pointed out that a very similar incident (British Airways Flight 2276) has it's own page. I'd say to wait a day or two and see if it gets more media coverage, but since the aviation and world communities attention are currently focused on EgyptAir Flight 804 that's probably unlikely to happen. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, as there is not sufficient evidence to determine the incident's "enduring historical significance" yet, and an aviation accident involving 12 injuries and damage to a widely used commercial airliner could very well be notable. Shelbystripes (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mundane engine failure - no consequences, fails WP:GNG etc. etc..--Petebutt (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Petebutt, I don't see how this is "mundane". An engine failure resulting in injury on a Boeing 777 is an extremely rare event. Shelbystripes (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 3 reasons: (1) I think the notability might be harder to see because it's being compared to the much "bigger" and "also recent" EgyptAir Flight 804 event. Comparing it that way does not seem balanced to me because some people might just not notice they are different stories in such a short time frame. So, comparing other recent news only makes it "look" smaller. (2) It also might have fewer news stories in English since it was only operating in Asia, but there already seems to be enough news in some other languages/places to already have its own article on both Chinese (at 大韓航空2708號班機事故) and Japanese (at 大韓航空エンジン出火事故) Wikipedia. So, more sources may be available if we consider non-English news. (3) Batik Air Flight 7703 also has its own page, but it had no injuries (except "3 (from shock)"), fewer than either of Korean Air Flight 2708 or British Airways Flight 2276. Zeniff (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. The Chinese article has even less information than the English one, discounting irrelevant information such as the exact time when each runway was reopened;
- 2. The Batik article appears more notable even despite lack of injuries because it is 1) hull loss 2) a high-speed collision which is generally more notable, and 3) because it was caused by a blatant human error rather than trivial equipment failure. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now As per WP:AIRCRASH, we should wait until there's further information released on the aircraft, specifically the cause of the engine fire and/or if the aircraft will be returning to use later. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant aircraft accident, with numerous injuries. Meets Notability guidelines. Not every disaster requires loss of life.Juneau Mike (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 1) Minor accident 2) Occurred on ground 3) No serious injuries 4) No importance for the aviation in general, e.g. not the first incident with the type/airline and not caused by a widely discussed defect in 777 5) Appears to be a trivial incident judging by this photo: [1]. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per exoplanetaryscience. Until we have a report on what this crash means to the industry it seems reasonable to assume that the coverage of the event at the time passes WP:GNG. Intensity has been focused on the 777 after several (perhaps unrelated) events, but that doesn't mean it isn't notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1)It's been almost a week with no real follow-up. 2)The injuries were caused be the evacuation of the aircraft, not the engine fire. Sario528 (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2016 (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.