Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 328

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)
• 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 ITN which currently leads 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)

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 of 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)