Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JetBlue Airways Flight 292 (3rd nomination)

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 keep. postdlf (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JetBlue Airways Flight 292

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

Lack of notability per WP:Aircrash; WP:NOTNEWS; At best warrants a paragraph in the A320 accidents section as the occurrence was not uncommon, did not presage any changes in regulations or procedures and was a known problem which was already being addressed by the manufacturer. Previous arguments for retention were very weak and should not have been given credence over common sense. Petebutt (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:Aircrash, WP:NOTNEWS, not to mention WP:GNG. Fourth AfD. Wow. This topic has had extremely extensive secondary coverage from reliable sources, the very definition of WP:GNG. As for WP:NOTNEWS, that policy is, as it states clearly, is about "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities." Not only is this topic nothing of a sort, it, per WP:NOTNEWS has had continued to get coverage years later in books and newspapers. [1][2][3][4]. Passes the non-guideline WP:AIRCRASH's "The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry" as the NTSB, after extensive testing and research, determined that it was caused by fractured nosewheel lugs. Contrary to the nom's false statement that the problem was "already being addressed by the manufacturer," the NTSB states that Airbus (the manufacturer) "did not have a procedure that would have allowed the flight crew to reset the system and restore hydraulic pressure" and that "Airbus has since upgraded the system to take care of the problem" and that Airbus has made a design change to correct this issue as well as issued new flight crew procedures.[5][6] --Oakshade (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The incident has been the subject of continuing coverage in reliable sources. For example, in 2008 (three years after it happened), it was included as part of a case study in Essentials of Management. Similar references appear in Beyond the Checklist (2012), Software and System Safety (2012) and The AOPA Pilot (v.48,2005). These examples clearly speak to the lasting impact of the incident. Pburka (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Epicgenius (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with prejudice. Notability met via WP:Aircrash and WP:GNG; Oakshade's analysis presents the case for that compellingly. This was also not a typical crash because passengers were watching the coverage on TV on the plane—something that led to even more coverage of the crash in reliable sources. (Yes, I just said we should have an article about a flight because there are news articles about how passengers on the flight watched news stories about the flight during the flight.) This is the fourth AfD for this article: Of the three prior, two were keep, and one was no consensus. Notability is not fleeting, and based on discussion so far, it looks like there's consensus to keep. IMO, we'd need a major change in the notability policy before a fifth AfD should be contemplated. —C.Fred (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per C.Fred, Oakshade, Pburka, etc. I am invoking the snowball clause. Bearian (talk)
Keep - the fact that this resulted in design changes means it meets WP:AIRCRASH and is worth retaining on that basis alone. - Ahunt (talk) 20:18, 10 December 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.