Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Air Lines Flight 1989


 * 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The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Delta Air Lines Flight 1989
withdraw-nomination


 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Reason Mattcontinental (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

1. The article is listed as an aircraft accident. The actual flight did not experience an accident. 2. Numerous contradicting information between the four aircraft involved in the 9-11 attacks.

Mattcontinental (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: Besides this, what sources are you considering unreliable? --  Veggy  ( talk ) 02:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment An anonymous letter on a website which says "propaganda" at the bottom is not what we refer to as a "reliable source." Edison (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: That's why I said besides this . --  Veggy  ( talk ) 21:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Answer The three ".gov" sources do not mention 1989 at all (The two PDF sources are the same document). It was not apart of the threat on the United States; it did not take part in the attacks. Mattcontinental (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have no idea which three you're talking about. Numbers 1 and 2 are the same source cited differently to denote differing chapters and both mention Delta 1989. The third mentions a Delta flight, but not by name. --  Veggy  ( talk ) 03:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ReplyThe mentioned flight may be Delta 2125.68.83.0.163 (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply:The 9/11 commission report did not identify 1989 as a hijacking (pg 28, paragraph 6) but rather a suspicious flight.Mattcontinental (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: Or it could have been 1989. Regardless, there is a reliable source which mentions it throughout. --  Veggy  ( talk ) 03:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, no valid reasons to delete. You have listed valid points for improving the text, not deletion. Anyway, the official commission report, p.10 and 28, definitely addresses flight 1989. NVO (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs cleanup, not deletion. Covered by reliable sources, so passes WP:N and WP:RS. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  13:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The plane was not hijacked and there was never any attempt to hijack it. A non-event. Right up there with the terrorist planes headed toward the Sears Tower that same day, which was also a baseless rumor. Not every rumored thing that gets passing reference in a humongous investigatory report needs to have its own encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: This isn't a rumor. --  Veggy  ( talk ) 21:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems that this should be part of the 11 September article, or part of a larger article on reactions that involved all suspect aircraft, or the grounding of all North American planes. It is interesting, and should be somewhere, but what is notable was the amount of confusion that reigned that day (quite understandable) as authorities tried to understand the whole picture of what was going on, something that was altogether new. The specific flight that was subject to a mistake is not notable. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep unless some one can establish that this is a hoax. A plane suspected of being a 5th hijacked plane was at risk of being shot down.  Yes, it proved to be a non-event, but the suspicion makes it notable.  It might be better being shortened and merged with a broader article, but that is not an AFD issue.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply NORAD did not deploy nor did they consider deploying interceptors until after contact was restored with the pilot and the plane was declared to be not a hijacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattcontinental (talk • contribs) 04:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep actual event, notable, especially in the context of 9-11. Mentioned in the 9-11 Commission Report.  In re 9/11 report not mentioning it, "Remebering the "we have some planes" remark, Boston Center called NEADS at 9:41 and identified Delta 1989, a 767 jet that had left Logan Airport for Las Vegas, as a possible hijack.  NEADS warned the FAA's Cleveland Center to watch Delta 1989."  Page 28 of the hardcopy, and it goes on from there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrefron (talk • contribs) 00:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Should be deleted There was no threat at all. The flight was NOT hijacked. The flight made communication with ATC throughout its flight. The only reason the flight is mentioned in the NTSB reports is because the idea of 1989's hijacking was purely that of a conroller who mistook a transmission coming from United 93 as coming from 1989. Delta did nothing unordinary. As for the section of the article that describes the plane being held at gunpoint on the tarmac at Cleveland, there were many aircraft that were subject to this because of suspicions.68.83.0.163 (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This anonymous user is almost certainly the nominator based on similarities in edits., Regardless, none of what he has mentioned is a reason for deletion. --  Veggy  ( talk ) 03:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: Actually, I am the nominator. I agree with this anonymous user: there was nothing showing that the plane was a threat. There is no other article on Wikipedia that is of a suspected hijacking which turned out to be without threat. Many planes, including three planes near Vancouver, were being watched as hijackings headed to cause destruction, as mentioned here.Mattcontinental (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: Your argument is not a reason for deletion. I suggest you read up on the process for deletion and try to mount a reasonable argument as to what to do with this article. Oh and sockpuppeting is not kosher. --  Veggy  ( talk ) 04:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply:I can see now the point to keeping the article. I do believe, however, that there needs to be some work done on the page with contradicting facts and such. There should be more sources linking the flight as a notable even.Mattcontinental (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: Cool. Just write withdraw-nomination at the top and inform an admin. Thanks. --  Veggy  ( talk ) 04:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ReplyAlthough the article may or may not be deleted, the fact of the matter remains that the article is about a suspected hijacking but the sources do not mention it as a suspected hijacking; just a suspicious flight, along with many others. I am just not sure whether it is a significant enough event.mattcontinental (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2008 (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.