Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 826


 * 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. The argument is about whether or not the article passes WP:EVENT. The article has been relisted twice, and, whereas there is some numerical advantage of the delete votes, as far as numbers are concerned, it is in the range of no consensus vote. More importantly, there are good arguments from both sides, policy-based, in particular, that it passes WP:GNG, and the lengthy discussion did not discover arguments why one of the sides is clearly wrong. In this situation, I close the discussion as no consensus. Given that the event happened 20 years ago, it would probably not reasonable to try to AfD it again before several years have passed.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

United Airlines Flight 826

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to be a case of WP:NOTNEWS and failing WP:EVENT. While one passenger died, the plane suffered no damage and landed safety and the incident did not lead to any long term changes or impacts on the airline industry. There was not even an investigation, or if there was one, it was not extensively covered. Planes encountering air turbulence is not that uncommon and unless it led to a major crash like American Airlines Flight 587, there is no reason to have articles on every single incident that occurs on a flight. Searching "United Airlines Flight 826" on any search engine mostly comes up results for the 1960 mid-air collision over New York, where one of the planes involved had the same flight number. A single death does not automatically merit notability, especially since the family did not file a lawsuit or anything The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 29.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 22:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG and the in-depth coverage spanned years and thus passing WP:EVENT's WP:PERSISTENCE. Once again a misuse of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT.  WP:NOTNEWS states very clearly it it meant to prevent articles on topics such as "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities..."  There is nothing "routine" about, outside of BOAC Flight 911, arguably the most notable clear air turbulence event in modern aviation history (AA 587 went down because of wake turbulence, not clear air turbulence).  WP:EVENT also is meant to preclude topics that only received "routine reporting" as this topic certainly has not.  Massive worldwide coverage when the event happened  and years of coverage afterward.  And The Legendary Ranger, how did you decide there was no investigation when it not only it took a second of a google search to find both NTSB summaries  at the top of g-search of NTSB United 826, but those investigation summaries (and reporting on them) are already in the article? And a topic with a similar name that is easier to find internet-based coverage has nothing to do with our notability guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete doesnt appear to be particularly notable for a mention never mind a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 09:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge into Clear-air turbulence. It doesn't sound notable enough to have its own article, but it could be added to a section titled Notable incidents in Clear-air turbulence. There have been a few of such incidents over the years that made it into the news, if memory serves me right, although most of them did not involved any fatality. --Deeday-UK (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This one did involve a fatality. There's far too much sourced topic-specific content to be merged to the Clear-air turbulence article. --Oakshade (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no need to merge everything. Sources like the NTSB's interim press release or the ASN entry are redundant, in this case, and trivia like the flight attendant hanging upside-down can be safely omitted. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The sourced flight details (altitude, flight path, weather predictions, etc.), timeline, amount of force, injuries, actions by the crew and the subsequent investigation are all out-of-place in the turbulence article. With this source from 2011, there's even more than can be included. Two similar sources in this article has nothing to do with the inappropriateness of content in another article (that issue was corrected anyway).  --Oakshade (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep Seems to meet WP:PERSISTENCE at face value.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge into Clear-air turbulence. I agree with Deeday-UK. Ruler1091 (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC) — Ruler1091 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. Appears to be a one-event news article with insufficient notability for a stand-alone article. Any pertinent details could be added to the Clear-air turbulence article if deemed relevant. --DAJF (talk) 09:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - There's been a great amount of WP:HEY work done on this article since almost all the of !votes. It should be noted that all the the delete !votes gave absolutely no rationale based on any of WP's policies or guidelines, whether it be WP:GNG, WP:EVENT (and WP:PERSISTENCE) or even non-guidelines like WP:AIRCRASH.  "Appears" or "doesn't appear notable" isn't proper rationale for deleting or keeping. --Oakshade (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * After a review, perhaps the creation of a disambiguation page and renaming this page United Airlines Flight 826 (1997) or something along those lines would appease objections due to redirects.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus yet. sst✈discuss 05:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈discuss 05:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Oakshade's reasons above (October 30 post). I note that Oakshade has done a lot of good work to expand the article. Perhaps Bahb the Illuminated is correct about requiring renaming though. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Is not notable enough to have a stand alone article Samf4u (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE aside, is there any rationale based on WP's actual polices or guidelines? --Oakshade (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The polices and guidelines are interpreted by the editors who use them. The incident makes a good newspaper or magazine article, but a stand alone article in an encyclopedia it is not. Samf4u (talk)  14:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Which exact polices or guidelines are you interpreting to mean the topic doesn't pass them and how did you reach that conclusion?--Oakshade (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 04:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Delete - Not notable by WP:NOTE. The incident was entirely preventable and not so much more important if a passenger died of injuries. As it might pass by Aviation accidents and incidents, it wasn't an important event and probably not memorable. Does not pass four criteria of WP:EVENT, and possibly which is strictly explained below and seems like WP:ROUTINE compared to other WP:MILL crashes which are also listed below.  A dog 104  Talk to me 23:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How is this topic receiving significant coverage by multiple independent sources spanning several years not passing WP:NOTE? And why delete this article because the "incident was entirely preventable"?  What does that have to do with WP:NOTE?  Almost every aviation disaster was entirely preventable.  And how is your subjective opinion that the topic is "probably not memorable" mean it doesn't pass our notability guidelines? --Oakshade (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:EVENT* that's how it doesn't pass. Besides an un-fasten seat belt is preventable by the passenger, not the pilots or the flight attendants because they're not going to force you to wear it. There's no more than five references on the page, which one is heavily relied on. Anyways seven years later and has anything changed from this accident providing major changed to aviation of United Airlines or Internationally? No, it hasn't besides the retirement of one aircraft. Besides my 'probably not memorable' is based of EVENTCRIT. It seems to fail WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSE, and WP:DEPTH (but that could be changed with more references).  A dog 104  Talk to me 19:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:EVENT is easily passed as there has been significant coverage spanning several years. By explaining that there is significant coverage that is relied upon at this stage in the article from fourteen years after the event actually demonstrates more that it passes WP:EVENT and especially WP:EVENT's WP:PERSISTENCE - key part of EVENTCRIT that you conveniently ignored. As far as the WP:VAGUEWAVE of five sub-categories of WP:EVENT, again that's all your subjective opinion and an example of WP:GAMETYPE.  It easily passes WP:DIVERSE and WP:GEOSCOPE as there was a tone of international coverage, especially in Japan and easily passes WP:DEPTH as the in-depth coverage spanned many years.--Oakshade (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the article, it only had a history of years coverage following an NTSB report and that's it, nothing after; which counters WP:PERSISTENCE. With persistence, it was covered by a NTSB report, which as other accidents and incidents do, its a routine act which is taken. Inside the article, there is no mention of other international coverage, and another country that reported on it doesn't make it notable either again. Another recent article that was deleted by a death was American Airlines Flight 550, which was deleted by this talk which covers WP:GEOSCOPE (which was reported by the U.S. and the U.K and others), WP:EVENT (as it involved a pilot death), and other Wikipedia-related event notability problems. Even though I thought it was a big deal, it wasn't because there was strong evidence it happens.
 * A single death on an aircraft doesn't make it notable as I've learned, and here to comply with evidence who's to say that here by a simple search, an Air France flight in 1996, Eastern Airlines in October 1990, China Airlines in 1982, or Indian Airlines in 1980 aren't notable? All five are similar with one or two deaths. This article has, again, five sources that aren't diverse or internationally covered by anyone other than the Aviation departments (NTSB, FAA) and a simple news report by CNN and a book, and again some are heavily relied on. Which I've said does not give it the WP:GEOSCOPE (as this article was covered locally in the United States by this article, which even if it makes it more likely to be notable, doesn't mean an article should be created), WP:DEPTH (which the article only has 2 being CNN and the book), WP:DIVERSE (which is relaying information already used), and WP:LASTING (as the outcome of this event was only the retirement of one aircraft from an airline that can buy more, something that would make it lasting would be a lawsuit by the family) it needs to pass. Also saying that all of these pass using WP:VAGUEWAVE is being hypercritical as just say that 'pass' without further explanation doesn't explain why its notable, which I've corrected here in this paragraph. Quite literally, this article is one of the run-of-the-mill reports that happened commonly at the time. But I highly recommend reading the AFD for AA550 here because its similar arguments about a death on an aircraft.  A dog 104  Talk to me 21:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * An aviation incident can be notable with zero deaths. TWA Flight 841 (1979) had zero deaths and that aircraft even returned to service.  The lack of significant coverage of other flight articles possibly not passing WP:NOTE as this one does pass it has nothing to do with this topic.  Unless you value WP:AIRCRASH which stipulates there must be deaths (with no number requirement), there is not a WP:MUSTBEMULTIPLEDEATHS clause anywhere in Wikipedia.  You just made that up.  And of course this passes WP:GEOSCOPE as this was heavily covered by the international press, not just "locally in the United States" (By the way, there is not WP:MUST BE INTERNATIONAL COVERAGE clause anywhere in WP.    Again, you've made up your own notablity criteria).  Just because you don't see international coverage in the article, which isn't required anyway,  doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  It took only seconds to find international coverage of this event, like that of BBC News.  WP:NOTE makes it very clear that Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article.  I would become familiar with the most basic clauses of WP:NOTE before citing it.  And it might not be your intent, but by citing coverage that came eleven years after the NTSB investigation, as well as the initially coverage, you're just demonstrating further of this article passing WP:PERSISTENCE. --Oakshade (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * From WP:AIRCRASH it states "The accident was fatal to humans", not one, but multiple by this crash. By TWA Flight 841 (1979), even with zero deaths, it could pass from WP:AIRCRASH falling under serious damage caused to the aircraft or possibly the change to regulation.
 * Also, its bothering me that I'm "making up my own criteria", which I'm not, I've used whatever was on WP:EVENT and WP:AIRCRASH (sometimes not mentioning it, but I implied on it) and sticking it here, make consensus not a point. Sure I messed up on WP:NOTE, but other sources not used in the article yet doesn't make it WP:PERSISTENCE. There was probably a ton of news reports at the time, but it doesn't make the event lasting any further. Besides an NTSB report, like I said, is routine depending on how long it takes, and after that report nothing else was emphasized about the incident rather than it was a death caused by turbulence. Besides even if it passes that one criteria, it still fails the other four important criterias that I've mentioned in the previous log of WP:EVENT (One criteria does not trump all)! AND AGAIN, its a run-of-the-mill article as there are other similar incidents that had the same outcome! (Read below)
 * Contrary, there are other incidents involving a death or two which I mentioned last time, which are similar to this. And again, as this goes back in forth this is very similar to this talk, highly recommend reading it and looking up similar incidents like this here which are greater or equal to the resulting information of this incident.  A dog 104  Talk to me 22:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course WP:AIRCRASH states humans as it wouldn't make grammatical sense to say "human", thus appearing to limit to one person dying. That's just game playing.  And yet another in-depth source from 2014, almost 20 years after the incident has been added to the article with additional content explaining the effect of the flight, further demonstrating this article easily passing WP:PERSISTENCE. TWA Flight 841 (1979) id not have serious damage - a single slat missing is not serious damage - and there is no confirmed change of regulation as a result of that non-fatal incident.  And demanding that a topic that already passes WP:NOTE (which you admit now) and WP:EVENT pass multiple other sub-clauses (which this passes anyway) is appearing as grabbing at straws Wiki-lawyering.  You may not like the fact this topic has received persistent in-depth coverage over two decades and perhaps feel it shouldn't pass WP:EVENT, but the fact it is does. --Oakshade (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Again saying it passes contradicts what was said previously with WP:VAGUEWAVE like how does it pass the other four criteria? And it's not that I don't like this article (which I do like it personally because of what has been changed from the older versions), but there's no excuse for it not meeting the WP:EVENT criteria. When WP:NOTE was said, I was implying wrongfulness of WP:NNC, not WP:NOTE as a whole for clarification. The problem with that other source too is that the part of the story was mentioned through a history of that aircraft. (Sorry about WP:LAWYER, wasn't aware of that in honesty and I do see it passes WP:AIRCRASH now, but WP:EVENT?).  A dog 104  Talk to me 00:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And again you're ignoring the core criteria of WP:NOTE "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." - in which this topic received significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. In this case that time was almost 20 years.  You can't get around that.  As for as satisfying your WP:LAWYER demand that it falls in line with every word is several sub-clauses (whilst you're now ignoring WP:PERSISTENCE which this clearly indicates even by the sources currently in the article), I've already written out in detail how it passes all of those above and not going to cut-and-paste them again. I only will add regarding WP:GEOSCOPE the sources currently in the article spanning many years are German, British and American so there's not even a question of passing that sub-clause.  Just by saying "doesn't pass EVENT" when the evidence totally contradicts that doesn't make it so.  We consider the facts, not our desire for what we want them to be. --Oakshade (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't get why my statements including:
 * "Which I've said does not give it the WP:GEOSCOPE (as this article was covered locally in the United States by this article, which even if it makes it more likely to be notable, doesn't mean an article should be created), WP:DEPTH (which the article only has 2 being CNN and the book), WP:DIVERSE (which is relaying information already used), and WP:LASTING (as the outcome of this event was only the retirement of one aircraft from an airline that can buy more, something that would make it lasting would be a lawsuit by the family) it needs to pass." and
 * "Besides even if it passes that one criteria, it still fails the other four important criterias that I've mentioned in the previous log of WP:EVENT (One criteria does not trump all)".
 * I've explained why they don't meet a lot of times before, which seemed to be ignored and I don't know how to say it again rather than copying and pasting it from my previous paragraphs. As for WP:NOTE, there are other events like I've stated twice. Its not notable compared to them as they seem like common events with common tragedies. As I've stated:
 * "...to comply with evidence who's to say that here by a simple search, an Air France flight in 1996, Eastern Airlines in October 1990, China Airlines in 1982, or Indian Airlines in 1980 aren't notable? All five are similar with one or two deaths" and
 * "...looking up similar incidents like this here which are greater or equal to the resulting information of this incident."
 * "Besides even if it passes that one criteria, it still fails the other four important criterias that I've mentioned in the previous log of WP:EVENT."
 * Is there something not clear about saying this doesn't pass WP:EVENT that I've previously mentioned?  A dog 104  Talk to me 03:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're just repeating the same red herrings that have nothing to do with this article passing WP:EVENT. Even if there are other events like this that don't pass NOTE, that has nothing to do with this article easily passing WP:NOTE.  None of your arguments hold any weight.  You've actually repeated the fictional WP:MUST BE INTERNATIONAL COVERAGE ("this article was covered locally in the United States by this article, which even if it makes it more likely to be notable, doesn't mean an article should be created") which even if that were necessary, this passes. If you'd like to change WP:NOTE and WP:EVENT ignore in-depth coverage by multiple sources persistent over a long period of time, you can make your case on those guidelines talk pages.  You can't just invent your own guidelines in an AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Final Comment- The other crashes I was referring to earlier was apart of WP:MILL (which explains that they're all the same, compared to each other this is not notable). I never said anything about my 'creativity' of creating my own notability categories, you're putting words in my mouth as I've strictly used arguments following WP:EVENT which are all credibly ignored. At this point we were both red herring, not just myself (which is why this leads to my last comment since this discussion looped with no further progress), and I still haven't gotten feedback about how it passes the other four criteria besides the "WP:PERSISTENCE" argument based on a single source added. A book from 2014 doesn't change anything about it's notability if its just apart of the aircraft's history, and nothing more goes about it. Regards.  A dog 104  Talk to me 23:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The newly added 2014 coverage is about the event, not simply "aircraft's history." Every source about every aviation incident is about "aircraft history."  Not sure where you're going with that.  And I've already gone into explicit detail answering those WP:LAWYER exact sub-clauses buried deep in WP:EVENT you're demanding and how it meets all of them so there's no reason to repeat. --Oakshade (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep significant event of CAT, and there are few others with even minor details.Hiobazard (talk) 07:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per 's excellent work on the article. Here is what the article looked like before Oakshade rewrote it. Oakshade's sources clearly demonstrate that United Airlines Flight 826 passes Notability. That the event was discussed years later shows that it meets WP:PERSISTENCE. This 1997 event received nearly four pages of coverage more than a decade later in the 2011 book Stratospheric Flight: Aeronautics at the Limit published by Springer Science+Business Media. Cunard (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is NOT an air accident and merely an incident. WP:NOTNEWS.  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  16:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a guideline? Any rationale of how in-depth coverage of this event spanning almost two decades applies to NOTNEWS?--Oakshade (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clear evidence of lasting coverage and attention in reliable sources per Oakshade and Cunard. Deletion would not improve the encyclopedia's coverage of turbulence concerns or of aviation safety in general. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2015 (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.