Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 1175

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Black Kite (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 1175[edit]

United Airlines Flight 1175 (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)

Fails WP:AIRCRASH, declined speedy. Let's all spend a week faffing around before the inevitable. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have no opinion, but the link cited by Andy Dingley above contains the text "Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting." --Jayron32 17:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Let's all spend a week faffing around before the inevitable" is not the best deletion rationale I've seen. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a CSD reason, or at least a snow delete. But Jayron is keen to keep it, so he removed the speedy. If AIRCRASH can't be applied here, then that's at variance to the rest of all the deleted aircrash articles, even those with multiple fatalities, where it is seemingly inevitable.
Now, let the pointless faffing continue. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He removed a CSD tag that had an invalid rationale. That doesn't mean he'd vote keep. Frankly you're attitude here is making it less likely that I'd vote delete, and I'm the one who tagged the article for notability. Pick an actual deletion rationale or I'll say it should be kept. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep because I'm having an argument with the nominator". Andy Dingley (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not keen to keep it. I have no opinion one way or the other. --Jayron32 18:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be "keep because the nominator didn't provide a good rationale". Procedural, and common. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON. A similar incident to Air France Flight 66, but this isn't an WP:OSE argument: the coverage of that flight extended into the weeks. I think it's likely notable if the news coverage is durational, but we don't know that yet. By the time this AfD closes, it may well be notable. Not a great article at the moment, but not as obvious a delete as the nominator seems to believe it is on WP:N grounds. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Air France Flight 66 is a weak case for notability and probably wouldn't survive AfD. Nor would Qantas Flight 32. However they were also uncontained engine failures, something which is just not supposed to happen, especially not on such a new aircraft type. So they have a reasonable claim for notability, for their technical aspects, rather than their newsworthiness. This event though - despite being described in the article as an uncontained engine failure (it isn't), and added to that article (it isn't) - this event was nothing like so serious. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between the seriousness of an uncontained engine failure vs. a near complete mid-flight removal of the engine cowling seems like an arbitrary one, especially when we have no credible accident investigators or aircraft engineers publicly stating that this incident was in fact "not serious" (and, again, many significant secondary sources do seem to have decided that it was significant, and will most likely do followup stories as details emerge). -- Eherot (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Err..... No. Serious difference. You don't need the cowlings to fly. More importantly, a cowling falling off doesn't have the energy to seriously damage the main structure of the aircraft. A rotating engine core very much does - which is why it's kept inside an armoured bucket. If that bucket fails to do its job, that's very serious. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's been extensive coverage over months of both Air France 66 and Qantas 32, and Qantas 32 survived an AfD right after the incident. I don't think we'll get here with this one - I think it'll go away after the news cycle. If this sticks in the news coverage, I'd change my vote. Notability doesn't have anything to do with what separates from what part of the aircraft. SportingFlyer (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS - not at all a serious incident; coverage is routine and highly unlikely to have any lasting impact. ansh666 18:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You should read WP:GNG , and i clearly understand WP:NOTNEWS but this is not the case here , this is not only about news as this incident marks a history in civil aviation.The history of this event wont fade away as it is taken investigation by Federal Aviation Administration and National Transportation Safety Board. AyaanLamar (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Everything cited here as a reason for deletion suggests that notability is strongly related to the number of secondary sources covering the issue and how long it is expected to remain in the news. Currently Google turns up over 2,600 news-related hits for this incident and the NYT has deigned to grant it multiple days of coverage on their front page. What's more: This article is almost certain to receive future front-page coverage in multiple global news sources as new details emerge. I and many others prefer to go to Wikipedia for these details because it is less likely to parrot unconfirmed speculation. Lastly, there are few examples of major engine malfunctions (where parts fell off of the airplane in mid flight) on large, commercial airliners where the incident did not turn out to have historical significance with ultimately thousands of people seeking to read the associated Wikipedia entry. -- Eherot (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability has nothing to do with how many people want to come to Wikipedia to read about something. That's the very core of WP:NOTNEWS. ansh666 18:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted as per Ansh666. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The article clearly satisfies WP:GNG. It states that 'if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list', this itself is a reason to keep the page. Moreover, the given sources have exclusive articles on the incident which clearly states that it is a popular aviation accident and is investigates by FAA and NTSB. AyaanLamar (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article has no established lasting impact, and the current wave of coverage by reliable sources can be attributed to the fact that this is a news story now. However, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM, this is not grounds for the maintenance of an article. It is also worth noting that whatever momentary coverage of the crash does exist is only a result of the fact that it occurred in the United States. It can not be stated at this point that this incident has any lasting historical significance (to do so would violate WP:CRYSTAL in my view), and as such this non-fatal incident derives no lasting notability, and thereby fails WP:GNG. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we Keep it per WP:AIRCRASH? This article clearly meets WP:AIRCRASH as follows : Principle 2 : Significant / lasting interest or impact (that is WP:CRYSTAL but so is everything recent on WP). Criteria A4 : Resulting in Break in the normal operation of airline and airport. 5. Suspension - Part of the airline's fleet were stopped. AyaanLamar (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That says you're not supposed to use it to determine a stand-alone article, though. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 21:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AIRCRASH does not allow for article creation, as stated by A lad insane, and as the statement of a WikiProject does not usurp fundamental Wikipedia rules like WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. Moreover, per those self-same guidelines, it only provides notability for aircraft which resulted in fatalities (no), hull loss or significant damage (no), or major changes to procedure for airlines (per WP:CRYSTAL, no). Therefore, it does not state that this incident is notable in any way. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of you actually read the alphabet soup you cite, or do I have to directly quote it a second time for greater effect. Let me save you the trouble "Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting." --Jayron32 02:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayron32:WP:AIRCRASH does not allow for article creation - both A lad insane and I explicitly mention that WP:AIRCRASH is not permissible here, despite the intention of some to apply it erroneously when it does not even bolster their point. Thanks for the reiteration. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. No one died, no one was injured and the plane landed normally. The only effect this had was to scare the crap out of a few people on the plane. That shouldn't have happened, but it's United Airlines, what less do we expect it's not bad enough. Maybe if the engine actually dismantled, but this was only the casing. Not the whole thing. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 21:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG and fails to meet criteria suggested in WP:AIRCRASH (a very sensible attempt to lay down criteria for aircraft accident articles). A non-notable incident promoted by the "we must have articles on absolutely everything" brigade. This incident would, however, warrant entries in relevant lists and aircraft articles.--Petebutt (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete AS per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG as well as WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. A cowling latch failed or was left undone and then media goes wild as usual. No serious damage done, no injuries, no deaths and the aircraft landed safely. - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the decision is to keep (which I doubt, after reading the above statements), then the article needs to be seriously re-written. Poor English used all over. Dannythewikiman (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Same reason as everyone else. - ZLEA Talk\Contribs 16:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete A single day news item which is unlikely to generate ongoing coverage, but at any rate, it hasn't generated on going coverage yet. We clearly lack the will to speedy these things, so there is always going to be a race to put every incident from the day's news in an article, and thus there will always be these really quite unnecessary deletion discussions if WP:NOTNEWS were to be taken seriously. Too many people can't figure out that "I get Ghits on news articles for something that happened yesterday" isn't good enough. Mangoe (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to History_of_United_Airlines#2018_planned_growth_through_2020. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The spaces at the end disable the pings, apparently. Mine didn't work and I imagine many of the others won't for the same reason. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 21:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that - maybe. Not really sure. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how this fits under History_of_United_Airlines#2018_planned_growth_through_2020. Planned growth by terrifying high profile accidents? That's a new one. AIRCRASH already gives guidance for whether it should be part of an airline article (it shouldn't) and if it can't meet that, a standalone article is even less likely. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have to completely retype it. There has to be a signature in the same edit. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 23:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@A lad insane: - thanks. Here goes: @Andy Dingley:, @Muboshgu:, @SportingFlyer:, @AyaanLamar:, @Ansh666:, @IJBall:, @Jayron32:, @Petebutt:, @Ahunt:, @Dannythewikiman:, @ZLEA:, @Mangoe:, @Andrewgprout: - I am pinging you all following User:Jax 0677's failed attempt to do so earlier. It is his wish that you view his argument above, and I am only acting to effectively ping you to this discussion. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it works now. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 23:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I got that ping. I don't know that this is a likely search term for anybody. What would it redirect to? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant section in the UA article should only list notable accidents and incidents - I didn't bother to check all the links to see if any of them are redirects to list articles, but the few I did check weren't. UA (the airline and the article) is simply too big to mention every single incident, and there's no standalone article on them, so there isn't really a good merge target. ansh666 23:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - There is nothing notable here to merge into the airline's history section or anywhere else. It just isn't notable. Minor damage to an aircraft, it is probably already fixed and flying again. - Ahunt (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be extremely WP:UNDUE in the history article. It's too minor of an incident even for the "accidents and incidents" part. ansh666 18:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't see how the events in this article get anywhere even close to - WP:EVENTCRITERIA which says "A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)". Andrewgprout (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As many have stated above WP:NOTNEWS applies here. While this type of failure is comparatively rare, the majority of the secondary sources don't provide a whole lot of info that would satisfy WP:GNG apart from stating it happened and passengers were scared. MSM have a habit of sensationalising anything to do with air travel, and the 24 hour news cycle means there will always be a lot of coverage, especially when there is visible damage/passengers with mobile phone videos. In the absence of significant damage to the aircraft structure, such as in Qantas Flight 32 or even Southwest Airlines Flight 3472 it appears to have been a fairly straightforward engine failure and I could argue WP:MILL applies here too. Dfadden (talk) 08:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't feel like voting at the moment. However, I shall say that, at least, we have a Wikinews article covering this subject. If the Wikipedia counterpart doesn't survive, at least we have Wikinews. George Ho (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:AIRCRASH should not be cited here. --Did you know... that you can talk to Dingruogu? 13:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, aside from 15 minutes in the breaking news.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: anytime an engine comes apart in flight, it is a notable aviation incident, even if no loss of life results. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The engine didn't come apart, only the covering. The engine itself seemed to be unaffected. ansh666 19:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It is missing a fan blade. Surely that is part of the engine. --178.19.221.38 (talk) 11:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hard to source "missing a fan blade" as there are any number of vague handwaves at this, without any real source.
It does seem that a blade was lost. I've seen one tweet with one photo, which may be of this incident. [1]
Questions still remain:
  • Did the engine shed a blade, fail to contain it, and then strip the nacelle as a result? That is serious - an uncontained failure, and as per the A380 incidents I'd support keeping it. But it needs real sourcing.
  • Did the cowling (or a birdstrike) get ingested, damage a blade, and then the engine contain the bits, as it's designed to do. That's nothing like as serious. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:GNG and no injuries sustained. Similar mishaps have taken place several times over the past few years. EnjoysButter (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Incidents like these are commonplace enough to gain a few minutes of news coverage, but that's about it. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOTNEWS - No loss of life so no impact locally or worldwide. –Davey2010Talk 14:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not noteworthy. No loss of life and no crash. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is of marginal notability; succeeds primarily on moderate depth of coverage in RS. In-flight separation of a major engine part--or any important airplane part--that results in significant in-flight bumpiness is not Run of the Mill and not Routine. By definition, it was News, but that's not an automatic disqualifier. I recommend keep as a service to readers who are interested in airliner incidents, particularly one that resulted in unique and frightening in-flight images. DonFB (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Semi-viral video. Single new-cycle reporting. Engine loss is fairly common. No reason to expected this will have WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A stand alone article is not necessary for this incident. - Samf4u (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/United_Airlines_Flight_1175&oldid=1138748704"