Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 1175 (3rd 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Owen&times; &#9742;  21:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

United Airlines Flight 1175
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:EVENT and WP:LASTING.

I note the previous AfDs and the contentious debate surrounding this article. It was previously deleted at an AfD in 2018, then restored by a deletion review in 2021. It survived a second AfD on the basis of continuing coverage and publication of new information which (allegedly) demonstrated the significance and lasting impact of this incident. This new information was almost entirely related to: Any time that an incident resulted in a news spike, it is likely that the release of the accident report may receive at least some coverage in secondary sources, but more often than not, this just means that the official investigation has concluded. Notability would be inherited from the content of that report, rather than its existence. In this case, it appears the report recommended changing routine inspection intervals for operators of PW4000 engines. This is a fairly predictable outcome that impacts a specific group of operators - more notable would be an unexpected finding that leads to sweeping changes to regulations across the industry as a whole, but even then it would be more appropriate to cover this in Pratt & Whitney PW4000 article. The article itself quotes the NTSB as saying they had not confirmed a link to the other incidents mentioned above that generated the media spike. Of the references cited that have been published from 2020 onwards, there is little to indicate significant WP:LASTING coverage of this incident. Most either provide trivial mentions of United 1175 while discussing other incidents, are WP:SENSATIONAL, or do not demonstrate WP:PERSISTENCE in the form of detailed case studies, rather they are rehashing what was already reported on in 2018. Other additions to the article in a bid to demonstrate notability have been irrelevant or unencyclopedic - including several paragraphs detailing the history Boeing 777 fatal accidents and hull-losses, an individual's filing of a lawsuit for emotional distress or timelines of the crew performing routine procedures such as initiating fuel crossfeeds and lowering the landing gear. I just removed a sentance and reference from 2018 that said United were planning to offer passengers on flight 1175 refunds! Dfadden (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The release of the NTSB report in late 2020; and
 * Engine failures on United Airlines Flight 328 and Japan Airlines 904, involving the same type of aircraft and engine.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Dfadden (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, California,  and Hawaii.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  06:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep. The event meets Notability (events) in that it has received significant coverage in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 even years after it took place on 13 February 2018. The event has become notable since it resulted in a new mandate by the Federal Aviation Administration (WP:LASTING) and it has continued to receive sustained coverage years after the event (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE), even if some of those sources are prompted by another event happening or by regional or local sources that have some connection with the event. If the event were non-notable, it would not continue to receive significant coverage years later. Sources published from one month to four years after the event (ordered chronologically) that provide significant coverage about United Airlines Flight 1175:      </li> <li></li> <li> From a Google Translate of https://www.facebook.com/notes/1674174042602267/: "Founded on April 26, 2011, Transponder 1200 is a journalistic medium specialized in aviation that, for more than eight years, has positioned ourselves as a benchmark in the global aeronautical industry. With correspondents in Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Ecuador, France, Germany and Mexico, we are a medium in constant growth, innovative and improving our publishing house, always managing to be in the taste of our readers, partners and clients. We are affiliated to the Federation of Associations of Mexican Journalists A.C., by APECOMOR."</li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>Additional sources that provide fewer words of coverage:<ol> <li> The article notes, "After the 2018 failure on the United 777, the FAA mandated that fan blades on the type of engine involved undergo special thermal-acoustic image inspections—using sound waves to detect signs of cracks—every 6,500 flights."</li> <li> The article notes, "But an NTSB investigation of the Feb. 13, 2018, malfunction of a Pratt & Whitney engine on the Honolulu-bound United flight faulted the company for not doing more stringent inspections."</li> <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 09:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Thankyou Cunard for pinging participants from the previous nomination - I did leave messages for the previous nominator and article creator on their respective talk pages as well.
 * WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is only one factor in determining notability per WP:EVENT. The context of the lasting coverage needs to be taken into consideration against all applicable policies and guidelines. It's less about how long the media coverage lasts for and much more about whether that coverage actually establishes the lasting significance of a particular event. Just because reliable sources exist and continue to be published, doesn't mean the subject merits a stand-alone wikipedia article.
 * There are clear guidelines on what constitutes WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources in the policy on original research which explicitly states: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Wikipedia is not a collection of news reports.
 * Considering this, the sources provided above are mostly primary, and while they may be reliable and independent, most provide little evidence of notability for this incident. They do not meet the threshold to pass WP:LASTING or WP:EVENT because:
 * 1. Is reliable and factual, but is a primary source per WP:PRIMARYNEWS that does not provide any analysis on the incident - it just reports what was in the NTSB's preliminary report, which is an example of WP:ROUTINE.
 * 2. Per WP:PRIMARYNEWS, this article consists of an interview with the pilot recounting the incident and should be considered a primary, not a secondary source. Primary sources rarely establish notability.
 * 3. An individual passenger filing a lawsuit as a result of distress/minor injury an in-flight incident is not inherently notable and is a WP:ROUTINE occurrence. If this lawsuit were a successful class action that determined the airline/manufacturer was grossly negligent, an argument could be made that the lawsuit established notability. As it is, the article is an example of sensationalism, which WP:EVENT states is a poor basis for encyclopedic merit.
 * 4. Is a primary source per WP:PRIMARYNEWS. There is also no new significant information included in this source. It that just states the final report is due to be released later that week and restates the summary of the preliminary report which is referenced elsewhere - again fails WP:ROUTINE
 * 5. Another routine primary source that reports on the findings of the NTSB final report without conducting any analysis
 * 6. Probably the closest yet to an actual secondary source, as it does discuss the events retrospectively in the context of some analysis, but does not draw any conclusive links between the incidents, just points out that there were similarities. To draw any conclusions that the modes of failure were actually related based on this article would not meet WP:NOR. Thus it does not demonstrate the significance of United 1175 that is required to meet WP:EVENT and WP:LASTING
 * 7. This is a primary source per WP:PRIMARYNEWS. As I am relying on Google translate to read the text, it is difficult for me to critique. However based on the translation appears to be about the 2021 Denver incident with a mention of United Flight 1175 being only recounting the basic facts of the incident and that authorities will investigate determine if the incidents are linked which might indicate a broader issue with PW4000 engines.
 * 8. I do consider this Wall Street Journal a good secondary source. While it does analyse United Flight 1175 in some level of detail, this is in the context of a broader series of uncontained fan blade failures of Pratt and Whitney and CFM International engines. It is likely this article would demonstrate each of the incidents discussed are notable enough to be mentioned in the articles for the respective engine models. However, notability is not inherited. Eg. The idea that that this particular incident qualifies for a stand-alone article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subject (ongoing issues with the engines themselves) is not actually proof of its notability!
 * 9. Like 2, is an interview with the pilot recounting the incident and should be considered a primary, not a secondary source. Despite being published four years after the accident, it also provides no new facts or analysis that would demonstrate lasting significance.
 * The three other sources that provide less depth also do provide some level of analysis (although 3. is relatively trivial). However once again, that analysis focusses on a series of separate incidents involving failures of PW4000 engines. As above, I would argue that the actually notable subject being analysed here is the mode of failure of the engine, thus it should be discussed in the article on the engine, rather than a standalone article on this incident.
 * If we are able to cut the article back to just the information supported by sources 7, 8 and the 3 additional brief mentions, I'd support a merge of this content into the Pratt and Whitney PW4000 article, or a redirect to the same target. Dfadden (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I consider all of these sources to contribute to the event meeting Notability (events). You wrote of source 6 "Probably the closest yet to an actual secondary source, as it does discuss the events retrospectively in the context of some analysis, but does not draw any conclusive links between the incidents" and of source 8 "I do consider this Wall Street Journal a good secondary source. While it does analyse United Flight 1175 in some level of detail, this is in the context of a broader series". Even if all the other sources are disregarded (something I would disagree with), these two sources by themselves are sufficient for United Airlines Flight 1175 to meet Notability (events). Regarding the WP:NOTINHERITED assertion about source 8, the essay is about Wikipedia editors claiming a subject has inherited notability when that subject has not been covered by reliable sources. This is not the case here since the subject has been amply covered by reliable sources. Notability says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Cunard (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: Pinging Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 1175 (2nd nomination) participants:, , , , , , , , , , , and . Cunard (talk) 09:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: I was pinged by Cunard. The article has reliable sources to meaningful content, dating three years after the event. WP:EVENT and WP:LASTING are passed by ongoing coverage of three years.  Ongoing coverage cannot be expected to mean endlessly never ending coverage.  SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No objection to User:Dfadden‘s merge ideas, if properly done, per WP:Editing policy, but mergers, especially complex mergers, should not be done through AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete this is a bit of an WP:IAR delete because of the sources, but this was basically a completely run-of-the-mill aviation event which just happened to be well covered. I expect this to be kept given our sourcing rules, but we generally do not keep articles on flight disasters where no one was hurt and nothing important happened as a result unless they were extremely unusual or well covered (the BA flight flying into ash near Indonesia, for instance). Just because we can source an article does not mean we have to have an article on the topic. I do expect this to be kept, and I almost sat this one out as a result, but common sense dictates this really wasn't that important of an aviation event. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * “ run-of-the-mill aviation event which just happened to be well covered” is a self contradiction, if you accept that Wikipedia covers things that others cover, in reliable sources, where “covers” implies secondary source content, not mere repetition. Run-of-the-mill is like churnalism which is characterised by repetition.  The three years ongoing sources are not churnalism.  This is no standout article, but it is good enough, and could be a good example of the comprehensiveness of Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The link you have provided to secondary source is a general article. Wikipedia has a policy on how WP:SECONDARY sources are interpreted and used to establish notability. The majority of news reports about contemporary events are actually considered primary sources unless they contain detailed analysis or are written retrospectively and look at the impacts of an event over time. This is covered in the policy WP:PRIMARYNEWS. By the standard of these policies (and arguments in AfDs should be supported by actual policy), it is nowhere near as clear cut simple as saying its covered in reliable news outlets, therefore it meets GNG. Things like interviews with the pilot are most definitely NOT secondary sources in this context. Also, you have misrepresented what churnalism means in regards to WP:MILL - the first line of that policy states "Something that is run-of-the-mill is a common, everyday, ordinary item that does not stand out from the rest." Churnalism on the other hand is "a pejorative term for a form of journalism in which instead of original reported news, pre-packaged material such as press releases or stories provided by news agencies are used to create articles in newspapers and other news media." Eg. repetition of press releases or mirrors of the same work under different mastheads. These are NOT the same thing. Not even close. Churnalism is not even mentioned in the policy WP:MILL (although it is mentioned in WP:RS). Dfadden (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You’re not telling me anything I don’t know. The article won’t be deleted because it meets the Wikipedia-notability threshold.  You need to decide whether you want to argue for deletion, or for a merger, because they are not compatible. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just because sources cover an event or a topic does not mean we need to have an article on the topic. The Aviation Herald lists this as an incident as opposed to an accident or crash, which are generally notable, and the lasting coverage is basically just a mention that it happened. There's also bias involved here - because two of these incidents occurred on American planes, there's more coverage available to Wikipedia than for the exact same Japanese incident, which does not have an article. As I said, I do expect this to be kept because people will see coverage and stop there, but this event really does not fit the mold of the types of aviation accidents which we are likely to have articles on, and as such I am making a common sense delete vote. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It has enough sources, over enough time, to pass the GNG. Passing the GNG does not mean it needs its own article, agreed.  It could be merged somewhere, as Dfadden suggests.  Merging is not achieved by deleting at AfD.  AfD is the wrong venue for merging, especially complicated merges. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with a merge, and AfDs can result in the merge of a page as you well know. SportingFlyer  T · C  04:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per the argument and WP:LASTING coverage provided by Cunard. If it doesn't have lasting impact, why would CNN give the incident in-depth coverage over three years later? and why would the FAA mandate new inspection processes based on the incident? Oakshade (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is nothing particularly notable about the FAA issuing an airworthiness directive to require changes to inspection intervals as a result of a mechanical failure! That's just an example of an organisation that is responsible for risk mitigation doing its job to provide additional layers of safety. Cracks were missed at the previous routine inspection - so a simple way of addressing that is to require engineers to look more often. Revision of inspection intervals happens nearly every time there is an unexpected mechanical failure of an aircraft component that is otherwise maintained in line with the manufacturers guidance. If this had been an Emergency Airworthiness Directive, then yeah, it would be notable like Qantas Flight 72, another non-fatal incident. Dfadden (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, the media loves to hype up and place undue weight on negative news, and aviation incidents are a common target. News spikes surrounding negative aviation stories have been increasing over the last few decades and are to be expected even for the most mundane of incidents. By triggering negative emotional responses, this can distort our perceptions of how significant an incident really is - as was demonstrated by van der Meer et al. (2019) Dfadden (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am pinged by Cunard as well. The action of FAA to release an airworthiness directive changing how the engine is inspected made the incident to be quite notable. The incident also grounded aircraft on multiple countries, showing that it's not just "another" accident but an accident that is treated more seriously. The article also mentioned that Boeing changed the design of the engine by strengthening its covers, another proof that this is not just "another accident". A routine accident won't spark an international grounding of aircraft and a redesign of the aircraft. &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   12:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The incident also grounded aircraft on multiple countries, showing that it's not just "another" accident but an accident that is treated more seriously.
 * I think you are confusing this incident with United Airlines Flight 328. The Boeing 777-200 was only temporarily grounded following UA328.
 * The airworthiness directive that the FAA issued was only mandating changes to inspection intervals to prevent mechanical failures. ADs are commonly issued by the FAA are not as urgent as EADs.
 * In August 2020, Boeing provided an update to the FAA on its work to also strengthen 777 engine covers. The manufacturer told regulators it had decided to redesign and make replacement covers with which airlines could retrofit their fleets, according to the FAA document.
 * The engine redesign was probably done to reduce damage an aircraft can possibly sustain following an uncontained engine failure, so not exactly an engine problem but was done as a safety feature. And according to the WSJ source, airlines could retrofit their fleet, so this redesign is an option, not a necessity. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.