Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JetBlue Airways Flight 292 (second nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 04:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

JetBlue Airways Flight 292
As I mentioned at this AfD, I am nominating this one now that that one has been deleted. Basically, I do not think that this incident was notable. The article itself says that "there was actually little real danger to the passengers or crew of Flight 292"; basically,. this was a non-event. No-one died, no-one was hurt, no-one will remember this (bar those involved) in a few years' time. It is a bad case of recentism, which is one of the chief flaws of Wikipedia. If it turns out that this radically changes design of aircraft or something, we can recreate. But for now, let us delete. Batmanand | Talk 18:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep This was notable as not only were people around the US able to watch this live on cable nwes, but the people on board were able to watch the coverage too, which is the first time this has ever happened. And as to your comment of nobody will remember this, I know I will, so that's already one person. The last afd on this was an overwhelming majority, and I tend to agree with the sentiment of the first. --Lakerdonald 18:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've been in an aircraft that had a brake fire.  It was only a flight from Bristol to Edinburgh, it wasn't on the TV, a few dozen people arrived home several hours later than we'd planned to.  I'll remember that incident, but that doesn't make it notable.  Neither is this one. Tevildo 22:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Your incident wasn't covered on tv and viewed by millions. Further, media coverage continued because of the notability of this event well after it occurred. 72.197.29.42 13:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Perhaps not a _routine_ occurrence, but only notable because it was on TV.  This sort of accident is not at all uncommon in aviation - are we to have articles on every baggage truck that bum ps into a 747, or every Piper Cub pilot that makes a bit of a bish of a landing and ends up with "Nosegear collapsed, engine shock-loaded"?  I hope not... Tevildo 18:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Tevildo. Kimchi.sg 19:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep valuable, well written, well sourced information about an unusual event that was made even more unusual by the scope and immediacy of the media attention. This article has already been kept through one AfD and we should do the same again. Johntex\talk 20:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as it was not an unusual event at all, just a televised one. There is no foreseeable consequence of this. If it is cited as the precedent in a major airline, or even media, change or event or what-have-you, then it can be recreated with a discussion that involves actual significance. Currently it is not a big deal. GassyGuy 21:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - That may depend on the definition of unusal. I think runway closings for emergency landings happen less than once a month across all the commercial airports in the US.   I will see if I can find a statistic on that. Johntex\talk 22:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, near disasters happen frequently, and they have to be truly exceptional to be notable enough for an encyclopedia article. -- Kjkolb 21:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - that view is inconsistent with the fact that we have articles on many frequently occurring things, without a need for them to exceptional in any way. A prime example is high schools. Johntex\talk 22:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I believe that articles on high schools should be deleted. Also, some things can be notable even though they occur somewhat frequently. Near disasters, in my opinion, cannot be notable unless there is something extraordinary about them. I don't think that the media coverage was enough to cover notability for an encyclopedia article. A newspaper or magazine article, certainly, but not an encyclopedia article. -- Kjkolb 00:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. per Johntex. --Aude ( talk contribs ) 04:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, maybe merge. I voted to delete the AA 1740 article and so I might seem a bit inconsistent here, but there are three factors which tip me to the keep side this time. First, this is a much better article, with a detailed summary of the events and the investigation. Second, this article was considered interesting enough to go into the DYK box on the main page (and I know of no other incident where the passengers on the involved plane got to have an external view of their aircraft from onboard screens). Third, while AA 1740 is hardly the most serious incident to hit American Airlines, B6 232 is the most serious incident so far in JetBlue's history (which might suggest that a merge of some, but not all, the content might be a solution). I think the notability of such accidents are very dubious, but because of the article's quality, the DYK, and JetBlue history factor, I am going for inclusion on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP, this was a HIGHLY notable accident, especially in California, with millions playing close attention to it. It will very likely be looked up in the future as an example of how transportation, media, technology have evolved. Also, the simple fact that there was so much media coverage on this event warrants keeping the article; if there had been no coverage then deletion would be warranted. 72.197.29.42 13:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep since this a notable accient. Also if anyone is interested please vote keep on my other low death plane crash article since that article has the same weight as this one. Storm05 15:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - A modern plane, why did this happen? - an accident doesn't need to be fatal to be notable (eg. Gimli Glider ) - in fact, this one is probaly more notable than the recent Russian runway slide-off which was fatal. Ace of Risk 15:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It was interesting, and it is notable due to the skills of the pilots. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it is notable because of the media coverage, and not due to anything else. 132.205.45.148 19:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ace of Risk and Hurricanehink; it was a pretty big event. -- RattleMan 22:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable, primarily because the passengers saw it on the DirectTV screens.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

1. The skills of the jetBlue pilots. If it wasn't for their extensive training and calmness, 165 people could have died. 2. Flight 292 was jetBlue's first accident. 3.The first time in history that passengers could watch media coverage of their own damaged plane from their seats. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.154.216.115 (talk • contribs) 04:43, July 14, 2006  (UTC)
 * Über-STRONG KEEP* It is notable for three reasons.
 * KEEP anybody who thinks this kind of stuff happens all the time is ignorant. It doesn't. This wasn't just an emergency landing. The take-off gear turned 180 degrees! That is not normal, and has casued fatal accidents! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thatthat (talk • contribs) 06:23, July 14, 2006  (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This item is very remarkable simply for the fact that the passengers were watching the event live on board. This is a first and is extremely significant. This is a landmark moment in the information age - it has always been normal for people to be told as little as possible ("to avoid a panic") - and that is beginning to become impossible. This event parallels the effects of modern communications on 9/11's Flight 93. Who here thinks that if they had the chance, the airlines or law enforcement would have called passengers to warn them about what was happening on the other flights that day? The ways that we communicate and receive information are becoming too pervasive to censor in many situations. I'm willing to bet that the pilot downplayed the emergency as much as possible to the passengers, but they were able to see just for themselves what was really going on. Do not underestimate the importance of this incident or the phenomenon that it heralds. -- Ed
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Stifle (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * VERY STRONG KEEP This is an important event in history, and there is no reason to delete it. THE AIRPLANE CAUGHT ON FIRE FOR PETE'S SAKE!
 * Keep There are several aspects of the incident that makes it unique and one that people will remember (per Ed's comments above) Agne27 04:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does Wikipedia keep a record of every evening-news robbery story or cop chase? No - yet those, too, may be watched by "millions of people."  Is this incident so unique that it deserves a permanent listing?  No.  Similar events occur, if not frequently, at least on a regular basis; there was no real danger to passengers and crew at any point.  I can see this meriting perhaps a paragraph on the JetBlue article, but a dedicated page is overkill for what was, in the end, a non-event. Ermar 00:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * However, has the person being chased in the cop chase ever seen the coverage via live TV? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article is well written.


 * 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.