Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 328

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 speedy keep. SNOW keep. There is no way a consensus to delete will develop here so I am closing it. Those who are in favor of deletion, perhaps reconsider the nomination in a year or so, when we have the time distance to look at it. Tone 14:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

United Airlines Flight 328

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

United Airlines Flight 328 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Aviation incident in which a plane landed safely with a burned-out engine. This is a case of WP:NOTNEWS. Yes, it has news coverage, but not everything that gets news coverage needs a Wikipedia article, especially given that engine failures are routine incidents. This merits a mention in the aircraft and/or airport article at most. Sandstein 21:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 21:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: should we make an article on every uncontained engine failure? Wikipedia would be full of pages like this.--Paolo9999 (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep WP:AIRCRASH. An uncontained engine failure isn't actually supposed to happen (the nacelle needs to contain the debris) and is easily "serious damage to the aircraft". --LaserLegs (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. A serious incident. Glad that thanks to actions of all those involved, everyone is safe and good. But, not often that you have engine debris drop from the sky. Ktin (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment if this does get deleted, the pagename should remain as a redirect either to the engine article or to the airline article, and the list of incidents and accidents therein, since it's a significant engine failure for the engine itself. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

*Delete uncontained engine failures happen and crew around the world just follow checklists to deal with them. That's what happened here, plus some cool photos on social media of bits of junk on the ground. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep now the aircraft type has been grounded. That makes it notable. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

And yeah, same goes for hi-jackings, dual engine fires, hydraulics, cabin fires, surges, and practically every other emergency. We just follow checklists, and deal with them. ThatIPEditor (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

"hi-jackings"? Is that like "high fivings"? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Meh if Wikinews were a relevant project, this might be better suited for that site. We have more stand-alone articles on aeronautical incidents than are needed, some (such as this one) are really just run-of-the-mill news. However, I don't see a good merge target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't it be the engine article? Since that's the failure, and it's a big failure on the engine itself -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • It would also be a significant incident for Broomfield, Colorado. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Agree, should be added to Broomfield, Colorado. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Oh, Good Lord... The nacelle didn't fall off the wing, but an uncontrolled turbine failure in our day and age is certainly notable. (Full disclosure: I began the article.) kencf0618 (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment If this is not kept/kept as a redirect, it is already listed at List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft#2021. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  That's perfect coverage for this kind of event. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Should probably also be mentioned at Pratt & Whitney PW4000, whatever the outcome here. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Uncontained engine failure and resulted in grounding of Japanese 777s; we'll have to wait to see if the NTSB recommends changes but that will be a ways down the road. Alpacaaviator (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The FAA is orderering increased inspections and trying to get other countries to do the same. This shouldn't be up for discussion at this point.Alpacaaviator (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable, albeit impressive looking damage to the nacelle, and concluded by a perfectly uneventful single engine flight back to the airport and safe landing. From an aircraft safety PoV, it's a minor incident. Btw, by all appearances, the failure was well contained. An "uncontained failure" is a very specific type of failure which implies a breach of the engine case, which is clearly not the case here. Arugia (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, per WP:AIRCRASH, as noted above. An uncontrolled engine failure with pieces of the engine falling out of the sky is a serious accident. There will be an in-depth investigation and follow-up coverage, we can be certain of that. Not a WP:NOTNEWS situation. Nsk92 (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep The nomination is based upon a vague wave at WP:NOTNEWS. What that policy actually says is "routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". The incident in question was not routine; it is in the news for the opposite reason – because it was quite dangerous, dramatic and unusual. For an example of routine news about sports and celebrities, see In the News which currently leads on the main page with Djokovic winning a tennis tournament – a very routine occurrence, as he's won that event 8 times before. This demonstrates that the policy is a dead letter and so it's the policy which should be deleted. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Too soon (delete or redirect) Per me previous comment above for the target. But this is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Planes have engine failures semi-routinely (if, luckily, rarely), and while sure it's in the news (cause we don't have a madman US president doing crazy things, so of course got to fill it with something else), unless this brings about some form of lasting impact (as in serious safety recommendations from a report) beyond dramatic and unusual pictures, there's no reason to have an article about it yet. Hell, even if the NTSB do launch an investigation there's no reason to have an article, there's plenty of routine incidents that get investigated that we don't have articles on. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep Ok, notwithstanding issues of sensationalism, now that there's been groundings etc., this is unlikely to just die out of the news cycle right away. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

That there are plenty of notable accidents that don't currently have articles is not a reason to delete this one. It is a reason to create articles for those other accidents. Lasting impact into the ages is not required for notability. We just need significant coverage by independent sources that is not transient, and doesn't disappear after a few days. In this case the rarity and the unusual nature of this particular accident make such vanishing coverage rather unlikely. In such situations rather than deleting the article now the correct approach is to wait and revisit the matter in six months or so. If the coverage has disappeared by then, the article can be re-nominated for AfD. But it is alwats easier to destroy than to build, and we are supposed to be in the buiseness of building the encyclopedia. Nsk92 (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep This has resulted in the grounding of planes with these engines in two countries. Brad (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Jim Hall former National Transportation Safety Board Chairman commented on the incident on 21 February, suggesting problems at the FAA - see https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/20/passenger-plane-drops-debris-denver-suburbs-lands-safely - Three airlines have taken Boeing 777s out of service after FAA issued an emergency order - see https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/feb/22/boeing-777-grounded-by-airlines-after-faa-japan-issues-emergency-order 81.131.132.226 (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep There is no reason for deletion, it is relevant and is well known enough to be a stand alone article BigRed606 (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Too soon (delete or redirect) as per User:RandomCanadian. Keeping it because something may eventually come out of this is WP:SPECULATION. To put this event in perspective, there was incredibly the exact same event (but not same plane) this very same day in the Netherlands with injuries on the ground ([1]), but no article. This just shows you how this article is merely a news copy, hence WP:NOTNEWS IMO. Sufficiently covered at List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft#2021 and Denver International Airport. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 01:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per Andrew, Brad PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep This was a highly unusual and notable event. Yes, engine failures happen all the time, but not ones that rain large pieces of debris onto neighborhoods. This event has already resulted in regulatory groundings of dozens of aircraft, and the full implications of the event are not yet known. To say this event is not even notable is pretty silly. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't remotely mean or say what some have suggested that it does. In fact, it specifically says "Editors are encouraged... to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events". That's what this is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.130.121 (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Weak keep: Hard to say, it's only been one day since this has happened. But virtually every news story I've read has explicitly said that this kind of failure is rare -- in other words, it isn't speculation and it isn't original research to say so. It seems that broader developments have started to happen as of a couple hours ago (example: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/22/united-engine-failure-faa-orders-inspections-pratt-whitney-engines.html), and I suspect there will be more tomorrow since it's no longer the weekend and news organizations will have staff.

I also strongly echo Andrew about the misuse of WP:NOTNEWS. If almost every piece of coverage talks about how rare this kind of event is, then it doesn't count as routine. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Strong keep, especially given the breaking news that some planes will be grounded Johndavies837 (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: As others have said, rare event. Side note, if the aftermath (such as the grounding of the other 777s) becomes the bigger story, it would be good to rename/restructure the article. Sewageboy (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep A lot of people saying "delete" are seemingly implying that because this incident may be mundane from a disaster perspective that somehow means it doesn't meet notability. Which, even if that were true, doesn't seem consistent with what is currently seen as notable on Wikipedia -- there's a lot of articles documenting flights that didn't end in total fire and carnage. If articles like this one about unruly passengers can exist and be featured on the home page, I don't see why an engine exploding can't. 68.117.55.155 (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: First of all, this event has gotten quite a lot of media attention. Second, these types of catastrophic engine failures are pretty rare. Third, the engine used on this flight (a Pratt & Whitney PW4000) has had a history of catastrophic engine failures (see Korean Air Flight 2708 for example). Due to the problems with this particular engine, there is likely going to be some major developments with the engine type. These three things show that this is a noteworthy article and should be kept on the site. Southwest Fan 101 (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A030:A870:C04A:599B:EC3F:D8F0 (talk)
• Keep. This article has just become highly-notable, just look at this BBC story with very rare footage of a fiery jet turbine shot from the cabin in mid-filght. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 05:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, as this has prompted an airworthiness directive and also action from international regulators, notably Japan ([2]). This is obviously an AfD on fast-shifting information but the keep !votes are increasing in frequency. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: Keep, because that although that single engine failed is common, we do not usually consider this "routine", and it is still a incident. But this one is a commercial scheduled flight, making it not "routine". Might need some parts deleted because that they aren't reliable sources, but, I think it is best to keep. ThatIPEditor (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: This is not a routine engine failure but a widely reported incident that saw debris shed over a populated area. Planes grounded, and some chance that these aircraft (old 777s powered by P&W engines) will be withdrawn from service altogether as a result. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 06:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - Uncontained failures in modern jet engines are rare, something like one per million flights. This one caused large chunks of engine to rain down on a populated area, which I would guess is even more rare. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep "engine failures are routine incidents" - maybe, but not for those inflight at the time. Easily passes WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep clearly notable & its v handy to have a Wiki page as a collated set of Reliable Sources on this. NBeale (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - (edit conflict) This is not just a regular engine failure. Shit literally fell out of the sky Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 07:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Large amounts of national media coverage for multiple days in a row. Even if mid-flight engine failures are common (which I'm not entirely convinced they are), the fact that large amounts of debris were strewn across a neighborhood makes this much more notable than if it were just an engine failure. I'd also draw a comparison to Delta Air Lines Flight 89, which does have an article. Mlb96 (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - the event led to a grounding of B777s, which means that the notability threshold has been passed. Mjroots (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Self-evidently an unusual occurrence. Subsequent edit: However, lightning does indeed strike twice and it will be interesting to see if Flight 5504 gets its own page too . . . Ericoides (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep This is not an usual engine failure given almost all the engine disappeared in flight. Wykx (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Small fires in engines are not routine and occur more often than most people actually know, however nacelle being ripped apart is rare, as media coverage has described. As per Andrews argument people are not reading WP:Notnews properly.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Just because it landed safely doesn't mean an incident isn't notable, especially when a foreign country decides to ground the type in response and, as several others point out, media coverage is pointing out how rare it is for this to happen. Also, that wasn't merely a burned-out engine, as you describe. That was a flaming wreck. ThroningErmine8 (talk) 11:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep When was the last time you saw debris falling from an airplane during a flight? Other airplanes using the same engine were already grounded. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 12:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Er, two days ago. Ericoides (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:AIRCRASH--Kemalcan (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC).
• Keep per WP:AIRCRASH and too soon. ...After the final FAA investigation report is published then reopen this rfd AND that would possibly be the best time to sort out this issue! --:GSMC(Chief Mike) Kouklis U.S.NAVY Ret. ⛮🇺🇸 / 🇵🇭🌴^⍨talk 13:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

References

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.