Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwest Airlines Flight 2294

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 per the snowball clause. Merge discussions could be continued on the talk page. Tavix | Talk 23:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Airlines Flight 2294

Delete non-fatal in-flight decompression causing flight diversion, doesn't happen every day, but won't be remembered a year from now either. Not notable, just news: WP:NOT#NEWS akin to the flight where the captain died en route. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Does Wikipedia has a specific policy for including air incidents? After all, the Sullenberger flight had no injuries or fatalities, yet has an article. A Hawaiian flight decompressed mid-flight and was (miraculously) returned to land with no harm to anyone but the plane. I can't say for or against at this point. 69.7.41.230 (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Aviation WikiProject has the essay WP:AIRCRASH, but this is not an official guideline or policy. (Editors may have different interpretations of how these guidelines apply, and in some cases we may ignore notability criteria if following them will make Wikipedia worse rather than better.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A flight attendant was sucked out of the Hawaiian plane, but nobody else died. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I don't particularly care for flightgeekery, this probably would meet the conventional guidelines on air disasters. Though there was no crash, the investigation into this would likely have an effect on the industry, since a large hole suddenly appeared in the fuselage at 30,000 feet. That sucks! Luckily, nobody was sucked out of the plane, and the crew handled a sudden decompression rather well. Since one takes it for granted that a flight will not include air rushing out of the cabin, it's notable. Mandsford (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to agree with Mandsford, a three second gnews search shows a wealth of non-trivial coverage [1]. - 2 ... says you, says me 20:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to me like this article has precedent to be kept, there's a lot of other articles that cover non-fatal air incidents such as US Airways Flight 1549, as already noted, but also ones like the Southwest Airlines runway overrun in Chicago, or the Air France runway overrun in Toronto. It doesn't seem like this one is any different. C628 {talk} 20:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.198.255.25 (talk) [reply]
Keep This could expose shoddy mtc record. RokinRyan
Keep The amount of coverage for this incident and its unusualness indicate notability. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is an aviation accident task force, the notability criteria for new articles seems to be under review judging by the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Notability, just happened to look through today's AfDs. I was under the impression that there were notability guidelines for aviation accidents, I'm not a regular there. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have non-trivial coverage and has sparked a major investigation. youngamerican (wtf?) 00:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unusual enough to be notable, I guess. JBsupreme (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This non-fatal incident has a lot to talk about, like that "football-sized" hole.
Merge and not keep, I identify that is a lit a bit of recentism, not really important. TouLouse (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerrysmp (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, and if it is not kept as a separate article, an incident of this nature is usually covered in the airline article so a redirect to Southwest Airlines#Incidents and accidents is a better solution than outright deletion. I am uncertain about how serious this was had there been serious injury or death the "keep" would be obvious. Ruptured fuselages, even where it did not lead to serious injury like American Airlines Flight 96 can be a serious event, but haven't seen anything that this emergency landing was particularily difficult. Comparisons to the US Airways 1549 Hudson River ditching are in my view irrelevant, as the Hudson River incident was a crash, where the peril was very real, albeit one where everyone survived, while this incident is a "mere" emergency landing on a runway where people simply walk off the plane. However, comparing this to JetBlue Flight 292, I think a hole in the fuselage while airborne is more serious than a jammed front gear upon landing. The keep vote would be stronger if this leads to an overhaul of Southwest's maintenance scheme, as that would demonstrate that the event had a real impact beyond being a news story. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I would think that the investigation into the cause of the hole would be what makes this article notable. ^{æronphonehome} 11:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I second Mandsford and C628. 18:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep In-flight structural failure of pressurised fuselage makes this a notable accident. Mjroots (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient sourcing and coverage at this time to keep the article. In any regard, the content should stay. If this disappears off the radar in six months to a year, it can be merged into the Southwest article with a redirect remaining at this title. —C.Fred (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2009 (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.