Your absolutely right there is no consistency. I agree with you that the Air Canada severe turbulence incident is not worthy of inclusion but I disagree in the case of the landing gear collapse because although there were no injuries the aircraft was written off. I also had no reason to go to the Air Canada page. But the big difference between the Air Canada article and this article is that this Ryanair article is already messed up. If you were to include this incident the next time something happens they will point to this incident as the reason why the new incident should be included even if minor (example: criticism section) Personally I don't even think that Ryanair flight 296 should be included and it definitely should not have it's own article. For one, there was no fire (which it says in the main article and flight 296 article) only smoke from the release of oil from the broken bearing. Secondly it was the passengers who opened and tried to exit on the wrong side (not sure how that is Ryanair's fault that passengers would exit towards the firefighters) Thirdly, the only problem for Ryanair is that some of the staff had trouble opening the doors but still everybody was able to evacuate in 90 seconds. Then in the flight 296 wiki article they even talk about how paying for uniforms and training in eastern Europe had something to do with the incident even though no ref is provided. But I know that if I delete anything about it I would probably end up in another edit war. 76.19.222.40