Talk:Thomson Airways Flight 1526

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 October 2019. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Jet engine#N1, N2, N3|N{{sub|1}}]] The anchor (N1, N2, N3) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Proposal for deletion: removed

I removed the proposal for deletion, because I consider this article relevant to air safety, although the event is not "famous". The aircaft nearly avoided a catastrophy, and the UK investigation classified the occurence as a serious incident. If the airport had not been located in a near-empty field, the fate of the passengers could have been tragic. A Wikipedia page is necessary for cross-reference; without a dedicated page, it would not possible to make a reference to the incident in the "see also" section of another article.--Pierre5018 (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is barely a stub of an article. It could be easily covered in an entry in larger article (Boeing 737 Next Generation or List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737). -Fnlayson (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

can the see also section of an article refer to a sub-heading of another article ?--Pierre5018 (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That does not help with this article being so short. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've got that the wrong way round – you need to justify the article's existence under WP:GNG before you can refer to it in a See also section, not use the desire to refer to it as justification. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues here: whether the incident is notable enough, and whether our article is viable. I’ve had a bit of a go at both aspects. Broadly, on notability, it looks as if (a) take-off warning technology is a 'growth-node' in aviation safety, and (b) electronic flight bags are a 'growth-node' for safety regulation. – SquisherDa (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you search the incident databases, you will find dozens of incidents in which data was entered incorrectly by flight crews, some of which could have been avoided by automatic warning systems and/or better use of EFBs. But that doesn't make all of those incidents notable. Rosbif73 (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was very nearly a crash, with a full fuel-load and 180+ people aboard. But it’s the Report tht really makes it notable, I reckon - hence my thoughts about growth-nodes. It seems possible it’ll prove to be a turning-point. – SquisherDa (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But none of the details of the incident are actually described in the article yet. Worst case possible outcomes are not usually a criteria for notability/significance since they are speculative. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The investigation classified it as a serious incident; thus, it is significant to air safety. It is not speculation, it is the conclusion of the investigation. The difference between an accident and a serious incident is only in the results. Keep in mind that the article was started today: it is still a stub. --Pierre5018 (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for consistency with other aircraft incident/accident articles

Given that there was no consensus to delete this article, can we at least get it cleaned up a bit?

No other incident/accident articles that I'm aware of include the IATA code in the title. I would therefore suggest moving this to Thomson Airways Flight 1526. (I'm not convinced that the capital F complies with WP:NCCAPS, in that "Flight" is not a proper name, but that's how almost all other such articles are styled). Would anyone anticipate this being a contentious decision, or should we just go ahead and WP:BOLDly move it? Rosbif73 (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion : Thomson Airways Flight 1526 operated by Sunwing--Pierre5018 (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that flies in the face of WP:CONCISE. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

( . . provided it completes its takeoff, ovyasly.) I’m with Rosbif73 on this one, Pierre5018. As also re f- / Flight; and not just for consistency: flight isn’t a proper noun, right enough: but Flight 1526 is a proper noun-phrase. (Ought to be a capital 1 as well/too/two.) And yes, BOLD is good for this. – SquisherDa (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sold as Thomson Airways Flight 1526 --Pierre5018 (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up and removed a sub-heading

This article was in serious need of clean-up. I modeled the lede based off other similar aviation incidents and cleaned up some of the references. I did away with the Reporting sub-heading because it added no value to the article in my opinion due to the low-profile nature of this incident and the massive amount of inappropriately placed citations that just seemed thrown in there. --18Things (talk), 10:07, 23 November 2019