Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Boeing 737 MAX crisis


 * 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 WP:SNOW, as of now, because there is no prospect of a "delete" consensus emerging. This can be reconsidered after the grounding is over if deemed necessary.  Sandstein  14:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

2019 Boeing 737 MAX crisis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON, has not become a "crisis" in the normal sense as of yet. funplussmart (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - the article was created less than 5 hours ago, and is still being written. Given that (imo) it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, it will probably look very different in 7 days when this could be closed --DannyS712 (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * keep for now - let's see how this evolves; both the page and the news. At the moment it is getting a lot of coverage and looks like this will span out to be notable; but I am willing to reappraise in a few days.  Mtaylor848 (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - Per TOOSOON and NOTNEWS, the right thing to do would have been to wait a few days (or weeks) and appraise if the article was needed in the first place. As of now, we don't even know if the 2 major crashes occurred for the same reason, as writing this article implies, or that this one had anything to do with the aircraft itself. We don't write a crisis article every time more than one aircraft of the same type crashes, and shouldn't. We have guidelines for a reason, and no discussion was held beforehand by the creator as to why these shouldn't apply. - BilCat (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Indeed, as BilCat noted, this is way too soon. If it turns out crashes had nothing to with the aircraft's design, the article will become moot, even if the interim crisis is real. For the time being, it would be best to provide a highly condensed description of events in the Boeing 737 MAX article. GregorB (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete; I'm unsure if the grounding of Boeing airplanes is a crisis in and of itself because groundings can typically happen involuntarily (or voluntarily) after a crash or other events (i.e. Overhead bins, Non-compliant paperwork, Pilot shortage) between airlines or in an airline.  Adog  ( Talk ・ Cont ) 00:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wikipedia should not read like the National Enquirer. We have to go with what the reliable sources say and not connect these two accidents or refer to it as a "crisis", at least for now: With much still to be learned about the Ethiopia disaster, safety experts are warning about drawing conclusions about the loss of the plane delivered to the airline in November. The jet’s last maintenance was on Feb. 4, and it had flown just 1,200 hours. There is no indication the anti-stall device was at fault in Sunday’s crash; the Ethiopian Airlines plane had passed all safety tests, whereas Lion Air pilots had previously reported problems with how that plane was responding to certain commands. National Post. - Ahunt (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * keep at the moment - The burden should be on Boeing and investigators to prove these two incidents did not share a same or similar cause. This page should be deleted if determined there was no connection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.truff215 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep: I agree that the article may have been created a little early - but not by much. Also, the name of the article may be a bit tabloid.  However, as matters presently stand, a substantial number of countries and airlines have grounded the model (more than 100 aircraft in total), Boeing's share price has been seriously affected, and the FAA has issued a formal notice about amendments to flight control systems and crew manuals.  There is clearly something amiss with the design of the aircraft, even if only the first of the two crashes is to be attributed to that design defect. Anyone who thinks that this issue is going to fade away immediately is clearly mistaken. Bahnfrend (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Deleting this article isn't about making the issue "fade away", but whether it's appropriate under Wikipedia's guidelines. But let's also remember that media paranoia has always existed, and runs a real risk of permanently damaging a company's reputation. This is something the guidelines are meant to protect Wikipedia from doing. - BilCat (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The point I was making in my comment is that this isn't a case of media paranoia. There have been two 100% fatal crashes of near new airliners, more than 100 aircraft have been grounded, and the FAA has accepted that there is a serious design defect.  This didn't happen with other recently introduced aircraft such as the A380 and the 787.  If the second crash turns out to have been caused by a different design defect from the one that caused the first crash, then the crisis will probably become even bigger than it is now. Bahnfrend (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And the point I'm making is that we still have no idea what caused the crash. It may have absolutely nothing to do wth the manufacturer at all. - BilCat (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: per Bahnfrend. Leotext (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep for now These are 2 seperate accidents/events, since the article is still new, let's just wait a bit longer. Thegooduser   Life Begins With a Smile :)  🍁 02:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Draftify for now until the story about the crash gets more information. TheMesquito  buzz  02:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - "OMG, a Volvo car crashed this morning, it got repeated on social media a zillion times, let's have a Wikipedia entry on the 2019 Volvo Car Safety Crisis!" XavierItzm (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - since 1978, a mass grounding of an aircraft type has only happened 3 times...when the DC-10's type certificate was suspended by the FAA after American Airlines Flight 191 crashed less than a minute after takeoff (138 were grounded in the USA where the plane was a workhorse at the time), the Boeing 787 Dreamliner after battery issues cropped up (with 50 grounded and the most severe effect in Japan]], and now this, with (as of this post) 135 MAX 8 aircraft grounded to date. A significant portion of an aircraft type being grounded is rare, with this being just the 3rd example in 40 years, and thus, in my opinion, this satisfies WP:NOTE. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep but merge with 737 MAX main article the grounding is gaining momentum and more airlines are now de-scheduling their MAX fleet. I'd keep this article but move it to a subsection in the MAX's main page (much like the Dreamliner's page has a subsection about its battery problems and subsequent grounding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makelelecba (talk • contribs) 03:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep More and more airlines are grounding the planes. Ethiopian, Chinese, Indonesian, Cayman, and just now Singaporean. So far the number of planes grounded is almost 1/3 of those in service, with 79, the most, by Chinese airlines. The significance of the magnitude of such grounding justifies the existence of the article. 98.207.237.179 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * By my count, it's actually up to 143 now grounded, with the announcement that SilkAir has to ground its six MAX 8 planes. However, no MAX 9 operators have grounded their jets yet, and the remaining operators would have major operations disrupted (such as Air Canada, which has 24). --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * relatively strong delete - I see the "crisis" word has been changed which was essential for any chance of this article staying.  I would wait two weeks and see what the situation is - there really is no hurry - we risk being ahead of the solid secondary sources so necessary for good articles here.   Andrewgprout (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How would you feel about redirecting to Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 so that the page history is retained in case a spin-off is warranted? Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 05:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes but I would be cautious of going too far down the detail everything scenario keep it general and in proportion - be careful of WP:NOTNEWS remembering that most of the existing will have to be thrown away very soon as the situation develops so there may not ultimately be much to preserve. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not delete passes the GNG and the grounding of an entire class of airlines by any civilian aviation authority is a rarity so I'm willing to presume notability. There are really significant issues with the tone of this article and it may be worthy of folding into another article until sources develop further however I'm ambivalent on that. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 05:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Tentative keep - I see there is a strong argument for TOOSOON, but now that the largest market for the craft in Asia has grounded the aircraft, it is possible that this article will continue to gain sticking power. I suggest we revisit this in a September, after it stops being a current event, and re-evaluate whether or not to keep it as a standalone article, or to merge it with the page for the 737 max. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 06:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Pure synthesis and conjecture. Groundings are normal after an air crash. Describing it as a crisis is silly. Not a single order has been cancelled and there is a 4 year backlog. Hardly a crisis and Wikipedia shouldn't state such an opinion in Wikipedia voice. ConstantPlancks (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Grounding of a particular aircraft has been the same practice since early aviation accident (despite no matter how many newspapers reported around the globe). It should not be written in a separate article. It may still be written, but under the main Eithiopian Airline accident article. Chongkian (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I can see that the name has been changed, which makes it less tabloid. I agree to keep it, at least for now. JanFredrikB (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Change to Keep enlightened by the course of events: This has evolved beyond WP:NOTNEWS and, while the article was probably created a little WP:TOOSOON, it has become clear that these groundings are a notable event in their own right. The content is already partly summarised within the ET302 article, but that does not preclude a separate article. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not only is this article only a few hours old but it has already moved to a new title and may well move again. We do not know what content might actually be up for deletion by the time this AfD has run its course. Global media have been raising some very serious allegations against the manufacturer and the story is clearly becoming notable on those grounds alone. We need to give this a few days at least for that to become clear, and I am confident that by then, sufficient RS to demonstrate notability will be all over the place. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This seems to be on track to be a major crisis for Boeing. I'd suggest keeping for now, and reevaluating in a few weeks time. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or Draftify (even after the title was changed) Reasons explained by BilCat. Arguments for keep seem speculative. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge with the Boeing 737 article. Compare Boeing 737 rudder issues as an example for the line at which a separate article is needed for issues with the 737. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. As more nations ground the 737 MAX, this issue has international implications. WWGB (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: As a reader and minor editor of this article I think this previous presentation for all its problems was clearer than this giant ball of text this has turned into. I don't really care if this is another article, but wish the primary entry point to this was a world map with highlighted countries/airlines showing where the plane is grounded, and with details about what each airline or country did when in some other section or a footnote. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This grounding is just temporary and does not warrant a stand-alone article.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 13:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I fail to see your point. 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull were also temporary. 386-DX (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Volcanic events are very dissimilar from airplane groundings and a silly argument at that.  Adog  ( Talk ・ Cont ) 15:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is enough content to warrant for a standalone article for now and we should re-evaluate at a later date for deletion. SifaV6 (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I know it's about a real world event rather than what colour boots a power ranger work for one week in 1997 but this notable event should be kept. Cameron Scott (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:SENSATIONAL, WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not a race to have information. There's nothing here that needs its own article yet, and much of it is already covered in other articles. Sr88,  talk . 13:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge with the Boeing 737 article, per User:LaserLegs. While it is useful and current, I'm not sure it warrants a standalone article. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep It has become a very notable event at this time, and being covered as such by numerous major media outlets worldwide. 386-DX (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete for now, if it turns into a major issue like with the Boeing 737 rudder issues then it's worthy of its own page. For now, we can cover it in the main article.  It's too early to speculate at this point. Zerbey (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and wait. If the preliminary results of the Ethiopian crash investigation show the cause was likely related to the same stall recovery system that caused the Lion Air crash, this article will continue to be relevant and notable, and will grow. If the preliminary results show the cause of the Ethiopian accident was completely unrelated (as signs are starting to point to, what with talk of smoke trails and strange noises), then all the nations who grounded the 737 Max are going to look silly and this article is likewise going to look silly—although it still may be relevant and notable. Time will tell. Darkest Tree   Talk  15:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This article is filled with plenty of great information already. Really enjoyed reading this, and I think it's well organized and informative, and absolutely relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.196.71 (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:ILIKEIT - Ahunt (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:LISTGAP. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete The topic does not need an article of its own.--Sakiv (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This useful article is filled with correct information and is a reaction of the crash. SRich (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:ILIKEIT - Ahunt (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and potentially merge relevant portions of this article into either the main article for the Boeing 737 MAX or for Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302. The decision by airlines to ground the 737 MAX 8 is significant, but only within the context of the development of the aircraft or of the response to the crash of Flight 302. It is hard to argue at this stage that this is significant in its own right. Compare that to, for example, air travel disruption after the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption, which was significant in its own right because of the enormity of knock-on effects that the closure of Europe's airspace for an extended period had on travel and commerce worldwide, as well as the fact that there were other effects of the eruptions that could be covered in greater detail in the main 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull article. I'm not saying that the 737 MAX 8 groundings would have to rise to that level of impact to merit a standalone article, but I do believe that it currently falls short of the mark, and would be best served by folding this information into one of the existing articles. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 18:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , merging is not an option if the article is deleted. This violates Wikipedia licensing terms; see Merge and delete. If any of the prose is to be preserved by merging to another article, the page must be kept as a redirect at minimum to preserve attribution. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Despite the sizeable amount of content on the page, I would agree with funplussmart that this page is not a newspaper. Looking at the page, it doesn't seem to warrant its own page. However, there does seem to be parts of this page that could be merged into the main article. Thesmartbird (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The article contains much useful information already, and the event is already notable - being covered by many major news sources. Additionally, there is already enough content for it to warrant it's own page. Nullpixel (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, but consider merging There is clearly a significant issue here, given that the European Union just said "we're not letting these planes fly in our airspace." That said, this may not be the right place for it. Samer (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to Boeing 737 MAX per WP:NOTNEWS. It can be spun back out later if needed. ansh 666 18:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * keep - further to my earlier comment; I feel the groundings in the last 24 hours are sufficiently notable in themselves.  I agree the page was probably created a little prematurely at the time but in itself that is not a valid reason for deletion.  Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep United Kingdom has just banned the plane from airspace. Certainly newsworthy for here. Admanny (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not news. Sr88,  talk . 22:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Meh. Could care less. Admanny (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This is already one of the largest and most publicized groundings of a commercial plane since the Concorde grounding in 2003. - ZLEA  Talk\ Contribs 21:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Temporary keep, but merge later. A separate list is not necessary for long term, as prose can simply summarize all of the groundings without listing every aviation agency.  For now, this is an ongoing news story. So, this listing is just temporary. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This grounding event has the potential to have wider implications than what is immediately apparent. Provision for the appropriate coverage of such a development should be kept for now. Reconsider the article's status if all the aircraft end up back in the air without too much fuss. Time will tell, as other's have said. JamsoWamso (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This has never happened before in aviation, multiple self imposed groundings by regulatory authorities and airlines, without the guidance of the manufacturer. It will probably become a defining moment for aviation, there is no legal precedent for this. In the future I suspect there will be a significant number of legal challenges and implications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.210.161.87 (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Grounding an aircraft is actually quite common for airlines, especially in non-crash events (see my post above). As others dually note, Boeing 737 rudder issues is a similar precedence for grounding aircraft's. It isn't the first time something like this has happened for airlines or manufacturers, but I will note the scale of such is large for the assumption since the fate of either is still unknown.  Adog  ( Talk ・ Cont ) 22:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Grounding an aircraft is actually quite common for airlines, especially in non-crash events (see my post above). As others dually note, Boeing 737 rudder issues is a similar precedence for grounding aircraft's. It isn't the first time something like this has happened for airlines or manufacturers, but I will note the scale of such is large for the assumption since the fate of either is still unknown.  Adog  ( Talk ・ Cont ) 22:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Easily meets our requireents. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge information to Boeing 737 MAX and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 as relevant with no prejudice against the article later being split back out. Simply not enough in-depth analysis yet or enduring coverage (WP:NOTNEWS), but I suspect this issue will have received enough coverage in a couple months to spin back off. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are people in such a hurry to delete this? Can't an AfD be opened in a few weeks when the topic has settled on either side of the isle?  205.175.106.187 (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, because this event has significantly affected thousands of people in many countries & involves many companies. Jim Michael (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep this article is about an ongoing reaction to the two crashes. Deleting it would imply that we refuse to aknowledge the fact that the plane is being grounded in everywhere else other than US. So the reasonable thing to do is have it as it is. Present the truth and keep the page Shadychiri (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, and no merge with Boeing 737 MAX. This may have been WP:TOOSOON, but is no longer. This is major international news and is accurately described as an aviation crisis. It's notable, it's real news, and reliable sources are aplenty. Map42892 (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's neither TOOSOON nor NOTNEWS. The groundings affect worldwide and are easily notable, even after 10 years, especially since the crashes themselves are hugely significant events. As the events unfold, the article can be updated with significantly more materials about the ongoing investigations and results. 71.31.30.66 (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia again appears idiotic with negative tags on its article on a high-profile, current topic. --Doncram (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Lets see how this turns out when the investigation on Flight 302 is complete. This is effecting several airlines and numerous travel plans. This is also a major point in Boeings history. AmericanAir88(talk) 02:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep the content, unclear if it merits its own article or could be merged. I think the groundings are significant enough to pass GNG. Legoktm (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Relevant and meets notability criteria. --  Dane talk  04:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - A highly irregular event that has moved beyond the scope of NOTNEWS.  Sounder Bruce  05:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep- Right now the article is in alignment with Wikipedia policy. Should anything changes as the news develops, we can always make changes accordingly. There is no need to delete the article entirely. Aceus0shrifter (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge relevant information with Boeing 737 MAX. This article is a flash-in-the-pan response to a breaking event well-covered in the Boeing 737 MAX article, and a banning of the aircraft would definitely be lifted so long that is no reason for its indefinite banning, and when it's lifted a separate article is not necessary to also document the flash-in-the-pan media coverage when documentation in the main airplane article is more than enough. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 07:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above, there is sufficient coverage to suggest that this meets wikipedia's notability standards. SSSB (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep whether or not it was TOOSOON when first created it very much is not now per the amount of news coverage of the event itself and the knock-on effects that would overwhelm the main article. Merging with the Ethiopian Airlines crash would not be appropriate as it's the combination of that incident and the Lion Air crash that resulted in this, not either one individually. Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The event is quite notable. BobNesh (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I feel this article fully meets the wiki standards. 27.104.229.22 (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This appears to be the most (or possibly only) definitive source of information on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.84.4 (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Very strong news coverage over the past 2 days and it continues to develop. StaniforthHistorian (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep These groundings have dominated headlines for the last couple of days and this is only the beginning. Grounding hundreds of commercial airliners is a hugely significant event in aviation history. The article was created less than 48 hours ago and already has 30,000 pageviews. Sharper 13:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * keep the grounding occupy a lot of news heading the grounding certainly a huge news because the grounding involves new aircraft and the number of airplane is a lot also major grounding happens rarelyStalinium best (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 *  Keep or merge - Story is receiving major news coverage. If this can not be kept, it should be merged into History of Boeing. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.