Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 1118

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. Not sure why but this AFD did attract a bunch of new accounts for unknown reasons. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 1118[edit]

[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)

Doesn't meet WP:Notability, and its also missing the main flight infobox. The whole article is missing so much information and is unorganized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZAviation21 (talk • contribs) 4 April 2024 at 21:39 (UTC)

Keep: As article creator. Also, that reasoning is very short, I doubt it's going to go very far. First AFD by creator and it's already an erroneous one. In addition, lack of templates is not a reason to nominate an article for deletion. If it's unorganized, why don't you be bold and fix it yourself? thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 22:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I didn't try to even fix it because I know this article will be deleted. Also note that if these incidents are enough to have its own article, then there would be WAY more of these flight articles on Wikipedia. WP:NOTNEWS ZAviation21 (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although choosing not to spend your time fixing an article you think will be deleted is reasonable, articles having unfinished aspects is not generally accepted as a reason to delete an article. In particular, make sure you've read WP:DEL#REASON and WP:BEFORE. (And welcome to Wikipedia!) Skynxnex (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should consider making a response Delete or Keep. You just replying to someone makes you look rather foolish then anything. And his intention (zAviation21), is that the flight has absolutely no notability of anything, engine fires, emergency landings are too far way to common. They also don't even meet the requirements for an article. Its like making an article for a flight because lightning struck its wing. Funny enough the article looks like its been made by an 8 year old. 2604:3D08:4C7F:DA00:41BB:B47B:8498:1F14 (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you remember to assume good faith. AFDs aren't votes, for one thing, and people are not obliged to make a WP:!VOTE. I hadn't looked at the AFD enough to decide my opinion but I felt like someone who has spent a fair amount of contributing to the AFD process I might help a relatively new user (ZAviation21) craft more effective AFDs in the future. Skynxnex (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: That is only part of the problem. The big problem with this article is that it isn't a notable event. Compressor stalls happen all the time so if Wikipedia considers compressor stall events a "notable event", there would be hundreds of articles about that in list of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft. Ok here is an example of a removed article that was pulled last month. UA35, you now what that is right? if not, it was a United 777 that lost a wheel on take off and hit a parked car. that was pulled due to it not meeting the notability criteria. I admire that you want to add an event to the list but it just isn't relevant enough to be added to the list. IDKUggaBanga (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also shameless plug, if you want to read that article and read why it was pulled, go to the internet archive, I saved those pages to read if one wants to. IDKUggaBanga (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS, no evidence of lasting significance. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Florida, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:SUSTAINED, WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:GNG. Aviationwikiflight (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Routine mechanical failure with little to no consequences, no loss of life, no crash, no rescue attempt. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails absolutely everything, one I can bring up is that WP:NOTNEWS. 0 notability, way too common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:4C7F:DA00:41BB:B47B:8498:1F14 (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as already stated above just a bad day at the office not that uncommon and certainly not noteworthy for an article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An incident of compressor stall occurred which was not significant enough to garner any noteworthy attention. Compressor stalls are quite common and occur frequently. WP:NOTNEWS. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely not article worthy, if this is article worthy then there would be way more aircraft incident/accident articles out there. This isn't meet WP:Notability and is WP:NOTNEWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationz (talk • contribs) 04:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nullify above vote: See User talk:ZAviation21#A question about other accounts thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 02:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: run-of-the-mill incident, fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then why does Delta Air Lines Flight 89 have an article? Fadedreality556 (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly convinced that the DL89 incident is notable either (though the fuel dump over a populated area is probably a contributing factor that makes it more notable than the article under discussion). But in any case WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't matter here. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that the article should be deleted, feel free to nominate it but per WP:WHATABOUT, this shouldn't be used as an argument. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The incident is not notable enough. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:52, 9 April 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.