Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 1175 (2nd nomination)

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 keep. The Bushranger One ping only 20:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 1175

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

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

United Airlines Flight 1175 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was undeleted after a recent deletion review, but it should not have been - this failed notability guidelines at the time and still does. It was restored on the grounds that a single local news report from Honolulu, the NTSB report being published (even though having an NTSB report does not make an incident notable), and being very briefly mentioned in articles about the cowling which fell off a United plane in Denver constitute "new significant coverage." At the original AfD, I noted that this might be notable if coverage of the incident continued, but it didn't. Still fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEVENT, WP:LASTING. SportingFlyer T·C 14:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 14:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Pratt & Whitney PW4000#PW4077 in United Airlines Flight 1175 where it's already mentioned. I'm not sure whether anything needs merging.----Pontificalibus 16:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As an FYI to the closer, someone posted on the article talk page instead of here wanting to keep the article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Too soon. Really, renom the day it is restored? First, the previous AfD is moot--that was then, this is now. And that AfD was littered with drive-by insubstantial or conclusion jumping comments that have not aged well. The restoration was not based on a single local news report--there was a significant NTSB investigation over two years with over 200 pages of PD text that can be used to improve the article. Notability is about coverage in RS, and NTSB is an exemplar of RS. It would be unusual if a non-trivial NTSB report was not sufficient all by itself to satisfy WP:N. NTSB does not pursue an investigation for months and years into something not notable. If something new is "mentioned" in relation to something old, then that means the old thing is still relevant. I would not characterize the new mentions as insignificant--I think that is not supported by a plain reading of the many mentions. WP:NOTNEWS does not mean that something in the news is not notable. WP:NEVENT is not really applicable two years later. WP:NEVENT is part of that, but specifically this event lead to an AD that initiated the 6500 cycle inspection interval, which was obviously insufficient since a subsequent failure occurred at less than 3000 cycles, and identified significant shortcomings that lead to major changes in the inspection process, that still did not prevent two subsequent failures.Dhaluza (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, if you click on first link from Find sources: Google (news) in the template, you get a new CNN article specifically about UA1175 that just briefly mentions UA328, exactly the opposite of the assertion in the nom: Andrew, Scottie (2021-02-22). "Another United Airlines flight experienced a right engine failure in 2018". CNN. Retrieved 2021-03-08. Dhaluza (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has nothing to do with the lack of casualties. There has been little subsequent coverage of the incident. What coverage existed has been very localised or was only in relation to another similar accident. SportingFlyer T·C 13:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we have two articles stating the NTSB report is being released and an interview with the pilot from 2019, both from local Honolulu news sources; an article about a lawsuit; an article about the NTSB report which implicated a local factory; and two articles from national news sources which were only written because the same thing happened to another plane. We really don't have any substantive national coverage of the incident, and the coverage which exists is only in relation to another event. The mandate was a result of a subsequent accident. All of this can be covered over at Pratt & Whitney PW4000#PW4077 in United Airlines Flight 1175. It's not a notable enough air disaster for its own article. SportingFlyer T·C 13:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is basically a divide-and-conquer argument. You take each ref in a different context and dismiss it as not substantive, then conclude that the sum is no greater than any of its parts. If something keeps coming up in different contexts at different times, that's evidence of notability, not evidence of non-notability (which is something that cannot exist). Also you continue to make unsupportable assertions. The articles don't say the NTSB report is being released, they comment on the report which was already released. There's national coverage, I posted one link above that was written specifically about this incident. And the NTSB report docket was compiled by the *National* Transportation Safety Board. Also from WP:N: "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." So you are holding these refs to a higher standard for some reason. Dhaluza (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. The timeline on this one is easy. In 2018, the event happens. We delete on WP:NOTNEWS grounds. After it's deleted, the Honolulu news has two reports on it. This wouldn't make it notable. When the NTSB report comes out, two more articles get written on it. Still wouldn't make it notable. Suddenly the same thing happens to another United flight, and now this incident becomes notable just because there's an article written about it? That doesn't make any sense. WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, but this was an incident which fails all of those concepts. We don't normally keep these sorts of articles, and as noted above, everything about this that needs to be kept can be discussed at the Pratt & Whitney article. This was routine, and there's no need for a standalone article. SportingFlyer T·C 00:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are incorrect on the law and the facts. I've already addressed WP:N "Significant Coverage" above. You are pigeonholing the subject based on subjective judgement on the its perceived intrinsic characteristics (maybe based on past practice as you say), and just assuming the coverage of it meets your low expectations. As I said in the DR, there are 200 pages of public domain text from the NTSB (now excerpted in the article) so that more than clears the bar for WP:V which is the actual policy. But your assumption that this is a routine occurrence is not reality based. In flight engine shutdowns are down to around one per million flight hours for modern jets, which means most pilots will never experience one in their entire career. This was a fan blade out event which is even more rare. This caused a loss of the inlet duct, which is not supposed to happen. That made the aircraft unairworthy and turned the crew into test pilots--they were not simply following preplanned emergency procedures (aircraft controllability was not normal per the cites). Had the failure occurred further out, or if there was a depressurization, the flight probably would not have made HNL, and if they did not achieve a stabilized approach a go-around was not possible, per the Captain's subsequent interviews. So the aircraft was in imminent peril. There were two basic problems here, the engine failure, and the airframe failure caused by a system integration problem. Both needed significant corrective actions, so the article cannot simply be merged into the engine or airframe articles. Also the PW4000 section you propose to merge it to is flagged because it is overwhelming the article after an incomplete expansion. Dhaluza (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the nom says the sources are still too thin to support an article, and this says the opposite, that the article is too thick. Obviously both can't be true. As for the unhelpful WP:fancruft comment, this is science fact, not science fiction, so that's a stretch. If this is applied science fancruft, is something like this mathematics fancruft that should be cut down to a stump and redirected? The lede sentence is inaccessible to a general audience, and it only gets deeper into the weeds from there. Dhaluza (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As it is way too soon since the last DRV, I suppose the nom wants this solidly kept. As the DRV demonstrated, there has been significantly new coverage that has come to light since the previous AfD that further demonstrates notability. Oakshade (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note: I have contested the DRV closure that undeleted this article at WP:AN#Review of DRV supervotes by King of Hearts. Depending on the outcome of that discussion this AfD may become moot. Sandstein 12:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely non-newsworthy. Why was there an article in the first place? The references presented above are typical of news reports that are created during a engine failure. I could find 300 engine failure reports, of a similar type, all over the world, in the last 2-4 of decades (some with deaths) and we could 300 similar articles, this time, in three months. That is how shallow and puerile these arguments are for keep. scope_creepTalk 17:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I should note that the arguments this is "too soon after DRV" are completely groundless. If something is recreated because new information has come to light, which is fine, they don't have any protection because they're newly recreated. In effect, they are in the same state as something created afresh the first time (i.e. you should give it a couple of hours to make sure they've dropped everything in, but we're well past that). I do not tender an opinion on whether the delete/keep grounds on actual policy bases are correct Nosebagbear (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's poor form to re-open AfD immediately after restoration for new info without giving editors time to make a good faith effort to add the new info. The article was not re-created, I had never seen the prior, so before I saw it restored, it already had an AfD ongoing. The result is that this discussion is defective because the earlier comments are on the old deleted article. A couple of hours is not enough notice. It's not reasonable to expect editors to keep the deleted article window open and continue to hit refresh like they at re trying to get a Covid vaccine appointment. We can wait a week to re-open an AfD just like we wait a week to close one. Dhaluza (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I explicitly said at DRV that I would send this to AfD if it were restored. The notability defects with this particular topic cannot be solved by editing, so it's really irrelevant when it gets nominated. SportingFlyer T·C 23:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, as is your right. But why the hurry? The basis of the DR was new info, which you dismissed out of hand. But how about WP:AGF and let the editors who found new evidence add it before starting a new AfD. What is the point of re-running the AfD without the new info? So now this AfD is defective because it started discussing the old article before the new info was added. Dhaluza (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Three years after the event, it continues to be the subject of multiple news articles, rediscussing it, and discussing ongoing implications. Obviously meets WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEVENT, WP:LASTING. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, after three years, WP:NOTNEWS should be well past it's expiration date! WP is WP:NOTANTINEWS either, as that essay explains. In fact NOTNEWS is actually short for What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper, which essentially boils down to Wikipedia should not read like a newspaper. It does not say that Wikipedia editors should not read the newspapers! Also WP:NEVENT, WP:LASTING do not say that a burst of news coverage is evidence of non-notability, because there is no such thing. A burst of news coverage is evidence of notability, but it may not be sufficient. But the goal posts are not movable, constantly staying just out of reach as more and more coverage accrues over time! I think these links are widely misapplied, and this discussion is no exception. Dhaluza (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if anyone wants to discuss the actual coverage and whether it is sufficient under WP:GNG, I've compiled a timeline. I did this to see if this was basically just a one-day story with only local interest as alleged. I found that the initial story was covered locally, nationally and internationally (including US and UK based reporters in English, plus non-English reporting) and there was continuing coverage in several local and national news markets (not to mention trade press and alternative media):
  • 2018-02-13 Day of news coverage in multiple local outlets in HNL that were picked up by national networks (CBS, ABC, NBC), plus AP, USA Today and byline stories in WP, NYT, NYP, IBD & BI which were carried worldwide, e.g. [1] also Daily Mail (UK)[2], Guardian (UK) [3] PerthNow AU [4] TheWest AU [5] AeroTelegraph (Zurich) [6]
  • 2018-02-14 Day after stories including passenger interviews and/or note that NTSB is sending two investigators, including ABC [7], CBS, UPI. Plus AD (NL)[8] Lidovky (CZ) [9] 20minutes (FR) [10]
  • 2018-02-15 Day 3 local interest story in Guam [11]
  • 2018-02-16 Day 4 story in SFGATE [12]
  • 2018-03-05 NTSB issues 7-page preliminary report, Washington DC [13]
  • 2018-03-06 & -07 NTSB preliminary report covered locally in HNL in multiple sources [14] [15]
  • 2018-10-29 NTSB issues 80-page Powerplants Group Chairman's Factual Report [16]
  • 2019-07-29 Flight crew get ALPA Superior Airmanship Award, PR pre-coverage plus KHON2 (HNL) interview.
  • 2019-08-05 After Ural Airlines Flight 178, RT did a review article on 6 incidents including UA1175 [17]
  • 2020-06-06 Coverage of lawsuit in Guam
  • 2020-06-30 NTSB releases 12-page final report Washington DC,[18] Local coverage HNL & SFO, AP, Bloomberg [19]
  • 2020-07-01 & 03 Coverage of Pratt responsibility in Hartford[20] CT and Brazil [21]
  • 2020-07-08 Aviation Week coverage of NTSB report [22]
  • 2020-08-09 National Geographic en Espanol [23]
  • 2021-02-21 Multiple source's news coverage of UA328 also includes commentary on UA1175. CNN covers UA1175 directly.
  • 2021-02-25 WSJ exclusively reports (previously undisclosed) ongoing Boeing 777-200 cowling redesign resulting from UA1175.
  • 2021-02-27 Transponder 1200 covers UA1175 (in Spanish).
  • 2021-03-24 Captain's interview on hometown KCRA Sacramento CA [24]
(additional links in the article and above)
  • So any suggestion that this was just a one-day local story is just not reality based. Even if you argue that the initial burst of international coverage in multiple languages is not enough for WP:N, the NTSB preliminary report should put this over the top because they are an independent WP:RS of national scope providing in-depth coverage. Then we have continuing coverage on different dates, in different sources, in different places, covering the subject from different angles. This is not a close call, under any reasonable interpretation of the guidelines. Dhaluza (talk) Dhaluza (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. I think the most surprising one above is the RT piece. [[25]]. RT has obvious bias issues, but it's probably a good primary source for Russian propaganda. So I read this piece as trying to put the Russian pilots who brought their A321 to a forced landing in a cornfield in the company of Sully Sullenberger. But they didn't stop there, adding 5 other incidents to the list. So RT found United 1175 notable enough to use for propaganda purposes. Dhaluza (talk) 09:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this article is deleted and incorporated into the article on United 328, it would be very complicated. Tigerdude9 (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination is based on WP:NOTNEWS which states that "routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". The topic here is nothing like that – it was a serious technical failure which has been the subject of extensive investigation, legal action and reportage over several years. There's a lot to say about it and, insofar as the result is lengthy, that's a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per our policies WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Don't really like doing 'per' !votes, but this has been litigated quite a bit, so there's not that much room for a groundbreaking new position. In short -- I find the keep arguments persuasive and the delete ones not. I have qualms quite generally with people's interpretations of WP:NOTNEWS, which frequently range from questionable to outright unempathetic (I've had the experience of seeing people involved in recent disasters be extremely distressed by the AfD notice popping up on the article as they read it). Overall, I'm confident saying that this has sustained coverage, a meaningful impact, and fits what we'd consider a notable aviation incident to be. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:47, 14 March 2021 (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_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1255439028"