Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwest Airlines Flight 1455

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 I am withdrawing this nomination in light of the unanimous and convincing response. The additional sources are particularly notable. Eluchil404 22:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Airlines Flight 1455

This article details a non-notable incident which resulted in no loss of life, no serious injuries, and no changes in policy or practice at Southwest. It should be deleted in accordance with WP:N. Eluchil404 21:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep After reading the article, I find it amazing that there were no serious injuries. This is what we describe as a "near miss" or a close call. The plane landed, ran out of runway, crashed through a fence, into a neighborhood and almost into a gas station. So yes, this is notable, just as it would have been if 150 people had been killed. Mandsford 21:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are other articles describing aircraft accidents and incidents without fatalities, including Hapag-Lloyd Flight 3378, Air Transat Flight 236, British Airways Flight 9, and Comair Flight 5054. In fact, Comair 5054 recovered from its icing conditions and landed successfully, so it's even less of an incident than the Southwest 1455 incident. Another similar incident, JetBlue Airways Flight 292, had no injuries, but a wide variety of news coverage. Based on these articles, we can safely keep this article. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep For the same reasons Mandsford and Elkman have stated. Notability is not necessarily based on number of fatalities. This plane didn't just run off the runway; it ran off of it in a dramatic way that could have been disastrous. It is notable as much for what could have happened as for what did. Additionally, I would point out that Wikipedia is not paper. I think this incident does not merit an AfD nomination. --Janus Shadowsong | contribs 22:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable based on severity of runway excursion...but barely (no loss of life, aircraft, nor any sweeping safety recommendations issued, and I don't think runway excursions are all necessarily notable). For this AfD many editors (including myself) dismissed the argument that "it could have been much worse" as not valid. I disagree strongly that this accident is more significant than those listed above (excluding Jet Blue). But the NTSB classified it as an "accident" (as opposed to "incident") so I think it just meets the bar. Lipsticked Pig 23:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - regarding the "no loss of aircraft"...actually, the plane was damaged severely enough that it was scrapped on site. As for the "no safety recommendations", the article asserts that there were, specifically in the "Survivablity" section of this article.AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep - On the face of it, the incident seems notable, but, as alreeady stated, just barely. However, notability must be established by verifiable, third-party sources, and I think this means more than just the NTSB report. Surely there must have been some news coverage of this. But to be notable, it has to have coverage beyond the fisrt few days of the event. With more outside sources, this would merit keeping. It's definetley a borderline incident. A similar event happened within the week in Canada with Il-76, but all it did was tear out 150 feet of fence. The circumstances here are certianly more noteworthy. - BillCJ 00:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe just past the weak mark. I've added a couple of sources; at the time, it was the worst incident in SWA history (surpassed by the eerily similar one at Midway 5 years later, which killed a kid in a car). --Dhartung | Talk 00:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding the sources. I've upgraded to plain Keep, tho, as you said, just past weak. - BillCJ 00:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the second source is dated 2 years later, I think that satisfies the continuing coverage requirenment for notability. Also, is there an incident page for the Midway runoff? I'd like to read it, and it should be linked in this article too, with some sources on correlation between the two incidents, if possible. - BillCJ 00:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - And not just because I was a regular customer at that gas station, as I worked at BUR at the time (the station is now a park). Seriously, though, I'd like to comment here as this AfD is another that's going to be helping form our air crash notability guidelines. This one would, in my view, be judged as notable for a couple of reasons: first and foremost, it was the first really serious incident that SWA had, after a very long safety record, one of the best in the industry, in fact. There are some contributing factors to the notability (contributing factors? I've been reading NTSB reports far too long!), that being the unique layout of BUR that puts the end of the runway just feet and a chain link fence from a sidewalk, very busy street and of course, the Chevron station. Also, add to the mix, the fact that SWA flights landing there would turn off the runway right into the gate, if they timed it right, without any taxiing necessary. All these factors combined, and I'd say that this is a good example of an "exception to the rule" for the general notability standards we're developing. There will always be exceptions, but those exeptions need to be discussed and justified, just as this one has been by all the comments above. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep it's a runway over-run that left the airport and went onto public roads. 132.205.44.134 02:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Akradecki; those were basicaly my thoughts on this, but he beat me to saying them owing to him having a head-start in terms of time zones. I'd view the notability here as something similar to Adam Air Flight 172 - the fuselage cracked during a hard landing with what most sources listed as no injuries and one or two described as "only minor" injuries. But it achieved notability because it resulted in Adam Air's 737 fleet, because it tied in with the then-recent Adam Air disaster, and because it resulted in safety checks for every 737 registered in Indonesia. Similarly, here we have a big airline's first and worst serious accident and an NTSB investigation that resulted in a reccomendation to upgrade an important safety mechanism. Also, AK's comments about the horrendous runway layout are valid for extra notability if cited and added to the article. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has several high points, each of which alone would probably make it notable:
- It was the most serious accident for SWA at the time
- The aircraft left the airfield and entered a high density public street area
- ATC was faulted by the NTSB
- The pilots were subsequently fired for their actions
- The configuration of the airfield was a factor, and is an ongoing concern
- An essential piece of safety equipment failed (escape slides)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaluza (talk • contribs)

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.