Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JetBlue Airways Flight 191

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

JetBlue Airways Flight 191

JetBlue Airways Flight 191 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. Absolutely no long term affect. ...William 19:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 19:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William 19:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Weak keep, on account of knowledge of background and results of similar cases, and a dash of ignoring the rules - and NOT because of the date. =) The long and short is simple: I've never heard of a pilot "snapping", as it were, in quite this fashion (which, naturally, doesn't mean it hasn't happened before), so as such, it strikes me as a unique enough scenario to warrant some notability. On account of WP:NOTNEWS, given the uniqueness of this, I'm not inclined to apply it quite yet. All this combined makes for a weak rationale on my part, therefore, weak keep. Yes, I fully understand that my args won't hold water by themselves. Long and short - let's let this ride out a bit before deletion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment You never heard of pilots who snapped snapping. How about Northwest Airlink Flight 5719? Silk Air Flight 185? Egypt Air 990? Royal Air Maroc Flight 630? Those were all crashes where the pilot snapped or had serious issues above the neck. It's notable when they actually bring harm to others....William 21:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Really, I had not. At least, until you pointed it out. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral: While this fails WP:AIRCRASH and is likely to fail WP:GNG a la WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, I agree that it might be wise to let this play out before jumping at the delete button - it is a rather singular incident, and following the advice at WP:RAPID might be prudent. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I think this would meet WP:GNG. Lugnuts (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Merging with an appropriate article on the general phenomenon of flight crew going crazy might be the best solution, as I don't see much sign of this story having legs or getting international attention (though deletion seems a bit premature). I don't know if there's an article already existing on the general phenomenon, or an official/common aviation term for this. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I happened to look it up here on wikipedia for reference reasons myself which is an anecdote of 1 regarding its utility for this purpose. The story also seems to be picking up a bit in noteworthiness with recent coverage by Time. that said, inclusion in a larger page of air incidents would be acceptable. Avalongod (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep This definetly meets,with regards to long term effects, in time there will be enough changes and sources to keep this article. Airplanegod (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - just reexamined the article. There are questions to accuracy beyond speculation that Lufthansa's sale of stake was more than coincidence to the incident, but beyond that, the sources presented bring it well beyond up to par with WP:GNG. Moreover, to counter the opening argument, there is speculation that this will have a long term effect. I'd like to reiterate my keep !vote accordingly, and motion for snow close at this point. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep This incident will most likely have some long term effects which are not known at this time. I think that the almost instant nomination for deletion was unnecessary and that some time should be given for the article to develop and the long term effects of the incident to be better understood before considering deletion of the article.Andrew Kurish (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Just as a note, "will most likely" falls under WP:CRYSTAL, and three days is not "almost instant". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Bushranger's analysis in his neutral vote above, and I think the deference here goes to keeping the article. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• Simple keep. A rather noteworthy incident that warrants an article. It has several published media sources, which qualifies for notability requirements. The way it was written at first was a mess, now it is better written, but could use some more expansion, hence the stub tag. Tinton5 (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Besides easily passing WP:GNG, it's not only willful ignorance to presume such a case will be quickly forgotten, Time published an extensive article of how this and other cases will have long term effects on US pilot training, screening monitoring laws and procedures.[1]--Oakshade (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2012 (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.