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 Delete per WP:SNOW. MilborneOne (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British Airways Flight 762 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not notable incident. Fails WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS applies.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 10:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William 10:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 10:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ...William 10:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC) ...William 10:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete non fatal incidents happen all the time. This is not news. LibStar (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Also, WP:EVENT is not met, either: So far, this is just a breaking news item, without any indication for further, presisting coverage.--FoxyOrange (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-fatal incident (WP:AIRCRASH) suitable for news sources not encyclopedias (WP:NOTNEWS). Doesn't look likely to develop into anything much, either - would need a WP:CRYSTAL ball to tell anyway. Far too soon, far too small. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 14:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per WP:AIRCRASH, the criteria for even mentioning an incident on the aircraft or airport page are fatalities, serious damage to or loss of the aircraft, serious damage on the ground or that the incident resulted in design changes, changes to procedures and so on. So far, this event doesn't seem to have met any of those criteria. If it's not worth mentioning on the aircraft/airport page, it's certainly not worth its own article. Dricherby (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:DOGBITESMAN - this kind of thing happens all the time. Precisely zero notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:AIRCRASH. There were (luckily) no fatalities or serious damage. This type of incident is common, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Consider it a blessing when disasters do not rise up to notability. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice to recreation after discussion - further info may come to light in the future which can then be discussed via the DRV process. Please see discussion at WT:AV re inclusion of this incident in the airline, airport and arcraft type articles. Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete strongly agree with has been said already. The event will be (luckily) forgotten really soon. --Snow Blizzard 20:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Delete per above and WP:AIRCRASH. WorldTraveller101^{(Trouble?/My Work)} 00:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking rather SNOWy, if anyone wd like to do the honours. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - completely non-notable, a minor incident that happens almost every day. Just a case of uninformed general media hysteria over anything to do with aircraft. If a car, truck, train or ship had been trailing smoke and had to stop, with no one hurt as a consequence, it would never have been reported in the media and we certainly wouldn't have a Wikipedia article about it. - Ahunt (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the article should be deleted but a plane trailing smoke is clearly more serious than a car, truck, train or ship doing so. If a plane has problems in the air, it can't just stop like a car, truck, train or ship. Dricherby (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason that airliners have a fatal accident record about 20 times better than cars and trucks is that they have certification standards and multiple redundant structures and systems, plus a trained crews, exactly with the concept of making these sorts of incidents non-events. - Ahunt (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2013 (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.