Talk:Southwest Airlines Flight 812

Redirects

Southwest 812, SWA812, SWA 812, WN812, WN 812, N632SW should redirect here (ICAO and IATA airline codes, like your airline ticket says, and the arrival/departure screens) -- also specify this airplane (most prominent use of this tailnumber probably) 65.93.12.101 (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Not so sure about those. We don't generally redirect from aircraft registrations. The article is linked from the Flight 812 dab page. Mjroots (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It's normal to link from flight numbers, like KAL007, Pan Am 103; and this is an notable instance occurring with this aircraft, so the tail number is appropriate. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, redirects created from flight numbers. AFAIK, we don't redirect from aircraft registrations. Mjroots (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete

This article should be deleted according to WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS (I hate citing guidelines, but if it isn't me it will be someone else, so might as well be me) Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe it meets the GNG and AIRCRASH, due to the worldwide coverage and the grounding of an entire fleet of 737s by Southwest. Mjroots (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

If a six foot hole appearing in your airplane at 36,000 feet isn't a notable incident, the fact that Southwest has grounded their entire half their fleet of 737-300s as a result certainly is. Nominate it if you want but I have a feeling it's gonna run extremely similar to the last one. N419BH 16:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I have just nominated this page for deletion according to WP:AIRCRASH, Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed User:173.2.69.13's AFD tag. I propose KEEP because this was a massive structural failure and NOTABLE. In fact, it's only a tiny notch below AQ-243, the only difference being hole size. Cheers. Thanks! --Inetpuppy (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

+1 KEEP from me - this is incident #2 for SWA with same A/C base type inside of a short period. Not to mention similarity to Aloha... Jkstark (talk) 03:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP and the nominator here on the talk page both have acted in good faith. Therefore, I have created an entry for this article at AFD, where discussion on this topic should continue. N419BH 04:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It got speedily kept. Mjroots (talk) 05:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Muy bueno! Gracias! Molto bene! Grazie! --Inetpuppy (talk) 05:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I was the one that proposed the AfD , I didn't realize I wasn't logged in. I stand behind the proposal though --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

How can I list this on DRV? I am kind of busy with work right now, so could any of you guys list it on my behalf or tell me how I do it. By the way, I saw the speedy keep and it's ridiculous. Two people gave their input and then they closed it. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You've said it "should be deleted according to WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS", but you haven't explained why or how it fails those criteria? Most likely this is why the closing admin considered this a "process AFD", and closed the AFD early. - BilCat (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It fails the criteria, because it wasn't a crash, there were no fatalities and it was just a hole in the plane, no big deal, everything is fine, it doesn't even need an article, I mean, is hardly news. It's just common sense you know. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Southwest has pulled 80 737-300s out of service for inspections, and that doesn't happen for something that's not a big deal. - BilCat (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That's just a logical air safety procedure. I mean, come on. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Camilo, you are at liberty to take the Afd to WP:DRV and ask that it be re-opened to be debated over the full 7 days, should that be your wish. If you do so, please post on this talk page that you have asked for a review. Mjroots (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no need, I mean guys! Your love for the article is overwhelming your logic. This has been acknowledged in WP:AIRCRASH , I don't need to open an AfD, all you have to do is see it from a logical perspective. I don't understand why editors feel so emotionally compromised to the articles they start. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

MJ didn't start the article, I did. And when the nomination for deletion wasn't done correctly, I fixed it. N419BH 04:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure initially that the incident was notable enough to justify a stand-alone article, but the grounding of all 81 737-200s by Southwest gives that notability. If the aircraft is declared as beyond economic repair, then further weight would be give to the argument for notability. An accident or incident does not necessarily have to involve multiple fatalities to be notable. As there was a very recent AfD, the correct procedure would be to ask for DRV, not start a second AfD so soon. As I said above, you are at liberty to ask for a review, and I would support the AfD being relisted so that it runs the full seven days. Mjroots (talk) 05:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Mjroots and myself are both well aware of what WP:AIRCRASH says, having participated in its development though several iterations. As such, we are well aware of what it says and means, and how it is to be interpreted. Some of the other users commenting here may have also participated. I also agree that DRV is the next step, and I would support this article's relisting for the full 7 days. However, unless some other users post here in support of the article's deletion, I can't see the outcome of a relisted AFD being any different than the original one. Relisting it with this expected outcome would also end up being process for process' sake, and just a waste of time. - BilCat (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

How can I list this on DRV? I am kind of busy with work right now, so could any of you guys list it on my behalf or tell me how I do it. By the way, I saw the speedy keep and it's ridiculous. Two people gave their input and then they closed it. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:DRV#Instructions. N419BH 22:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While I agree the AFD was closed way too early, no other user has supported this article's deletion here. That's a good sign that the AFD will not result in a Deletion, even if it does run for 7 days. As such, a DRV and relisted AFD would end up having the same result we have now - the article will be kept. So while I support a relisted AFD on principle, for pratcila purposes it would be a better use of your time to just let it drop for now. - BilCat (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I listed the article on the DRV here. Hopefully it will get deleted at some point. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I had made the comment earlier that this seems like a very notable incident since this was a second occurrence in relatively short order on an aircraft of this type, especially since with a single carrier. Other incidents with this base type are also well known. Going further now, with additional aircraft found to be potentially at as large a risk, and an emergency order for inspections with all US carriers, and what may very well become an AD in short order makes the incident even more notable. My KEEP stands. Jkstark (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The AFD has been relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwest Airlines Flight 812 (2nd nomination). - BilCat (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A second AfD is now running. All !votes should be made there, not here. Mjroots (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest to re-compose your message to other editors as "vote" might be a little misleading --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

He said "!vote", not "vote" - that's a standard userterm for AFD Keep/Delete comments. - BilCat (talk) 05:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh..ok.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

My notices at the relevant WPs merely announced that the article had been nominated for deletion, with a link to the article and AfD discussion. I believe that these notices are sufficiently neutral to comply with WP:CANVASS. Mjroots (talk) 08:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have closed the deletion nomination and removed the template. I apologize for the time wasted. Happy editing!--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Photo

Flickr is great. Next time a commercial plane ends up on wikipedia, search flickr. Plenty of people have DSLRs and of course don't trust it to be secure in the baggage so sitting bored waiting for their flight, they take many photos of landing planes. ~ Justin Ormont (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Most excellent. Now all we need is an image of the accident itself. I've been checking flickr regularly but so far all that's there is All Rights Reserved or spam for the NFL lockout. Looks like there might be some useable NTSB images in the near future. N419BH 23:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

NTSB images are PD, are they not? The NTSB News Images webpage has some photos, but they appear to be credited to various agencies. Mjroots (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

In the vast majority of cases, images created by the NTSB, and all U.S. Federal Government agencies for that matter, are Public Domain. N419BH 05:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hull loss / airframe write-off?

I believe news sources reported that the aircraft will be retired. Thus, can we call this a hull loss incident or airframe write-off? Thanks! --Inetpuppy (talk) 05:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NEVENT

Article does not make any claim to lasting significance, there does not appear to be any change in procedures. LGA _talk^edits 22:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

LGA, please see the extensive discussion above, as well as the two AFDs and DRV. Consensus seems well established that this incident is notable enough to justify an article on Wikipedia. You are welcome to take the article to AFD for a third time, but I predict a similar outcome. WP:AIRCRASH is a guide, not a rulebook. Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Flight 812 was lost the nose wheel in the runway

Flight 812 Southwest Airlines 84.213.180.112 (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)