Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EasyJet Flight 6074

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. Since the deep dive by Aviationwikiflight, consensus appears to be to keep the article. Malinaccier (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EasyJet Flight 6074

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

~~Non notable incident and WP:NOTNEWS BasketballDog21 (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. BasketballDog21 (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, no major injuries in comparison with 2001 Japan Airlines mid-air incident, its the same case as Air Europa flight 045, and no aircraft damage, so cannot be in Wikipedia since it's not notable. Protoeus (talk) 04:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF is not exactly a convincing argument since every article has to stand on its own merit. The 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion does not have any injuries, Air Canada Flight 759 doesn’t have any injuries and the list goes on. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, France, Spain, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No deaths or anything to make it very notable. It should be redirected to List of aircraft accidents and incidents by number of ground fatalities. Wheatley2 (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing inherently notable about the incident per WP:EVENTCRIT, and no sign of changes to procedures or other WP:LASTING effects. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that the article on EasyJet Flight 6074 is not important and notable enough. The event's details are not well-documented by reliable sources. Yakov-kobi (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no signs of notability for this incident nor deaths caused. There are thousands of similar plane incidents like this and not all of them will be given their standalone article. Galaxybeing (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: with not a single wounded person, this is very far from having the lasting consequences for WP:NEVENT. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep (with the possibility of draftification to improve the state of the article) – A lack of casualties does not necessarily imply non-notability. A major electrical failure leading to a near-miss with the possibility of being intercepted by fighter jets is not run-of-the-mill.
This incident led to multiple recommendations being issued, as well as (an) airworthiness directive(s), several being implemented which does satisfy WP:LASTING. Multiple systems were modified by Airbus as a result of this incident and several changes were also made:

Annuel safety recommendations review annexes^: 3–4
Annual Safety Recommendations review^: 88–91;
G-EZAC Safety Recommendation Document;

Easyjet Flight 6074 (G-EZAC) was also used as a case study across multiple studies years after the incident which does demonstrate the event's notability:

University of York – Failure Logic Modelling: A Pragmatic Approach –31 March 2010–
Vanderbilt University Graduate School – Model-Based Detection in Cyber-Physical Systems –25 October 2011–
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications – 航空機局の検査制度について (In Japanese) –27 November 2011–
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications – 航空機に搭載する無線局の検査の在り方に関する検討会報告（案 (In Japanese) –10 August 2012–
Hamburg University of Technology – Eine Methode zur optimalen Redundanzallokation im Vorentwurf fehlertoleranter Flugzeugsysteme (In German) –July 2013–
University of Strathclyde – Impact of key design constraints on fault management strategies for distributed electrical propulsion aircraft –10 July 2017–
University of Strathclyde – Establishing viable fault management strategies for distributed electrical propulsion aircraft –3 September 2017–

The incident was listed in EASA's list of recurrent defects:

EASA Community Network | Recurrent defects

The incident was also analysed by the Flight Safety Foundation:

AeroSafety World September 2009^: 16–21

Whilst not having significant coverage in news sources, the incident was widely used as a case study for multiple studies, led to numerous recommendations being issued along with service bulletins, and led to modifications being implemented by Airbus. "Airbus faces demands for A320 series electrical systems improvement following EasyJet report" I don't see how this event would qualify as failing WP:NOTNEWS since primary sources are practically non-existent and that this is not exactly a breaking-news story (I've been able to find a singular news report on this event, The Daily Mail but it's not exactly a source that we would consider reliable). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been able to find a news report on the incident from the Telegraph, published the day after the release of the final report. [1] Archived version Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another BBC news report on the incident – [2] and a short news report by The Mirror, [3] plus a short mention talking about another incident. [4], and another news report. [5] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to express a keep opinion if, among other things, this incident was used as a case study on an ongoing basis, but I couldn't find anything in the first two English-language examples that you cited other than the references section. Can you point me to some specific page numbers in any of those references (even non-English) to show how this was used to show lasting impact on the aviation industry? The PDFs are more than a hundred pages long each, and I searched for the airliner name and the registration of the aircraft, but couldn't find what you were referring to. The current version of the article suggests that a scary technical problem occurred, many bad things could have happened, but the flight eventually landed safely. I'm not yet seeing the lasting notability that can be added to the article, or presumed notability associated with a hull loss or crash with injuries or fatalities. RecycledPixels (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I failed to precise this but the incident, in most the papers, do not directly mention the incident but instead use the incident as a source, reference, among many others. If you search for the registration, you should normally be able to find mentions of the incident in the sources section. Per the order of pdf files given above, the specific page numbers are: p.337; p.222; p.26; p.172; p.184; p.20; p.10. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aviationwikiflight, you've shown that the incident has been widely studied, and that it led to procedural and design changes. The article could of course, if kept, be updated accordingly. But does it make the flight notable enough to justify a standalone article rather than just adding a sentence or two to the existing mention on List of accidents and incidents involving the Airbus A320 family? I'm not convinced yet... Rosbif73 (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nominator has been blocked for being a disreputable sock. Borgenland (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Aviationwikiflight due to (1) changes in procedures and (2) demonstrated use as a case study. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Rlandmann= Changes in procedures. A serious near miss and major electrical failure. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 14:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am persuaded by the sources presented by Aviationwikiflight that this event has WP:LASTING impact, and the sources show that this has been covered by multiple independent reliable diverse sources over a decently long period of time. As such, I believe that WP:NEVENT guides us towards keeping this article. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:20, 29 July 2024 (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.