Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Air Lines Flight 89


 * 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.  Sandstein  16:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Delta Air Lines Flight 89

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable aviation incident. Planes have to dump fuel in case of an emergency landing. WP:NOTNEWS ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Additional comment - I have substantially improved the page, including a rewrite and additional of additional cites. It's definitely clearer that it passes WP:GNG now. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * delete this is just mill news. But I guess congrats to the kids who are gonna get their college tuition paid for! Praxidicae (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Too soon. Planes dumping fuel may be routine, but a plane dumping fuel at low altitude in a dense city with the inevitable resulting lawsuits and ongoing coverage is certainly not routine. There may be WP:LASTING effects with an FAA investigation, so maybe renominate in due course if that's not the case.Pontificalibus 13:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to fuel dumping since that's the only aspect of the incident that seems to be of any note, and the latter article doesn't talk about the effects on the ground of the dumped fuel. Even if there are FAA findings they are likely to be specific to that practice. Mangoe (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Generated huge amount of news and also an unusual incident. It needs some improvements though. ( G a b i n h o >:) 15:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC))
 * Keep - Characterizing this as a routine fuel dump ignores everything about this story. It is a highly unusual aviation incident for an aircraft in the US to dump large amounts of fuel at low altitude over a heavily populated area. While the victims weren’t aboard the aircraft, this incident caused dozens of injuries (Now up to 60 reported), and is receiving substantial media attention and a full government investigation. There’s little doubt this is a sufficiently notable aviation incident. The article needs improvement, but that’s not a valid reason to AfD it. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge to fuel dumping for same reasons as Mangoe and WP:NOT. Other than the schoolkids zero notability. Fuel dumping is normal emergency operating procedure. The Captain failed to comply, no dramas no notability, the same as "the driver failed to stop at a stop sign"!!--Petebutt (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No it isn't.--Petebutt (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ”No it isn’t” is not exactly a meaningful rebuttal. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No it isn't definitely clearer that it passes WP:GNG now. Feel better now.--Petebutt (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, because I was still hoping for a meaningful rebuttal. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Added to the article again; this incident has now led to call for new safety policies at another airport (Sea-Tac) to have a response for surrounding communities if a fuel dump on the community occurred there. This incident is now driving discussions of safety reforms beyond the neighborhood where it occurred, which further demonstrates likelihood of lasting notability. Shelbystripes (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The procedures were not at fault. They were not adhered to!! Sea-Tac only knee-jerking. We don't have articles on wikipedia because someones knee jerked!!--Petebutt (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We do have articles about incidents on Wikipedia because they led to policy or procedure changes, though. If this incident is driving new demands for emergency response plans specific to fuel dumping on densely populated areas near major airports, and is the catalyst for that demand for change, that alone makes this incident notable. For determining notability it doesn’t matter if you think new ERPs are really needed in your opinion, it only matters that calls to action driven by this incident exist, which at this point they do. If that never materializes into meaningful change and this incident fades into obscurity, this page can be re-nominated for deletion in a year or two, but for now there’s clearly sufficient indicia of notability and deletion is inappropriate. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Likely to stay relevant in the media for quite some time due to the controversy and possible ramifications.  Sounder Bruce  06:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge, as above. WikiHannibal (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Pontificalibus and Shelbystripes. This is very much not a routine incident. ansh. 666 23:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge as discussed above; even if the incident ultimately results in changes to aviation safety regulations, these are best discussed in the article about fuel dumping. Carguychris (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But that would conflict with the usual policy that large aircraft incidents are notable if they result in changes to regulations or procedures. Why the inconsistency? Shelbystripes (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep highly unusual incident (fuel dumped on children's playground, causing casualties), generated significant media attention. Will likely have an impact on aviation regulations. Brycehughes (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This clearly meets GNG and is a very historic event, especially with the fuel being dumped over a school and kids getting hospitalized. 73.91.117.24 (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. An unusual incident that received international coverage. There's an investigation and CNN is reporting that a lawsuit has been filed, so there's probably going to be additional coverage. Johndavies837 (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - It passes WP:GNG now --AGTepper (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't oppose a review later on after all the coverage blows over, but for now the event is gaining more and more coverage each day. With what looks like a major upcoming lawsuit, I'd wait. Plus it seems to pass GNG as of now anyways so a review may be unnecessary in the future. ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs)  18:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - While dumping fuel is a common occurrence (because planes must dump fuel in order to land shortly after takeoff as the plane would be too heavy to land full of fuel), the way the pilot dumped fuel in this flight is very uncommon and has caused injuries. Pilots are not supposed to dump fuel at such low altitude, and not over populated areas. The breach in protocol makes this flight notable for a Wikipedia article. Banana Republic (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - The plane dumped fuel over elementary schools, injuring people on the ground. As they are not supposed to do this, this makes this incident notable enough to be an article. ThatOneWikiMaster (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Highly unusual incident with relatively high amounts of media attention for said reason. Not a normal fuel dump. My name continues to not be dave (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WP:NOTNEWS, yet it's an unusual enough event involving a plane mishap that didn't involve a crash for a change, and has gotten enough national coverage. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  05:26, 22 January 2020 (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.