Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Air Lines Flight 855

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Eastern Air Lines Flight 855

Eastern Air Lines Flight 855 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This doesn't meet the notability standards, either in general or supplemental, for coverage in a stand-alone article or even, arguably, for mentioning in the type article's accidents-and-incidents section. The engines flamed out due to bad maintenance, the pilots restarted one, they landed. There was no hull loss, no fatalities or even injuries, and aside from "you screwed up the maintenance, here's a rule to Do It Better", there were no significant changes to procedures or regulations as a result of the incident. It was a close one, but close doesn't count. Note that in 2011 a PROD was declined on the basis of "incident has received wide and in-depth coverage up to the present day" - but a search doesn't seem to show it; there's plenty of routine coverage of the "this incident happened; here's how; here's what you can do to avoid making the same mistakes, and here's what you can do if your mechanic didn't watch the previous bit" type, and the only book coverage that would indicate "beyond the routine" is a self-published, vaguely fringey title or two.

(edit: It's also worth noting, or at least disclosing, that the article was created by a long-since site-banned editor who was (and is, as he's one of our most persistent sockpuppeteers) notorious for pushing non-notable aircraft accidents into every possible article.)

TLDR: doesn't meet notability standards, no continuing coverage, shouldn't have an article accordingly. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment I recall this incident because at the time I was visiting my parents in South Florida. This incident is certainly more noteworthy than Northwest Airlines Flight 5 which also has a Florida connection. Usually I am in favor of delete, but for this article I'm on the fence as of now....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - A major airliner losing thrust in all engines is a very rare and notable event regardless of why. British Airways Flight 9's engines flamed out simply because the pilots weren't properly informed where volcanic ash was and that flight had zero fatalities or injuries and no haul loss. While I believe the nom made a good-faith effort to confirm the previous PROD-removal rationale, "incident has received wide and in-depth coverage up to the present day" but I've learned over the years searching with simply an article title isn't always efficient. Firstly in 1993, there was a huge amount of coverage from the likes of the New York Times, the Washington Post and UPI and many others (these here are just samples). [1][2][3] with the full NTSB report in 1984.[4] Secondly, very in-depth coverage continued for decades, like that of the 2017 book Behind Human Error (authors include Sidney Dekker). [5] Other in-depth coverage include the the 2008 book Is it Safe?: Why Flying Commercial Airliners is Still a Risky Business, and what Can be Done about it [6] and the 2008 book 35 Miles from Shore: The Ditching and Rescue of ALM Flight 980 (some pages missing from this preview) [7].--Oakshade (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The search was done by the flight number, and the sources you mention above are exactly the sort of routine coverage any incident like this produces. Furthermore, Is It Safe? is a self-published book and thus not a reliable source (and is also exactly the one I mentioned in the nom as 'self-published with a conspiritorial tone'). I'd be happy to be proven wrong here, as it's an interesting incident, but I have yet to see anything to indicate it's a Wikinotable one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:ROUTINE coverage is "such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" and of course the coverage that is decades later - or even just after the incident happened - is nothing of a sort. The Wikinotable is of being the in-depth coverage by reliable sources that spreads over decades thus easily passing WP:GNG. Even if you exclude that one book out of all the coverage, this still is easily Wikinoable.--Oakshade (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - a 1983 mechanical failure is not notable.--Rpclod (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Does being a 1983 mechanical failure suddenly mean this did not receive in-depth coverage spanning decades thus passing WP:GNG not to mention there was not a total engine failure of a major jetliner? --Oakshade (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep, the event has received significant coverage in multiple sources. In addition to the books already mentioned, this event received an entire chapter's worth of coverage in the book Emergency! Crisis on the Flight Deck by Stanley Stewart. The book also has chapters devoted to American Airlines Flight 96, British Airways Flight 9, TWA Flight 841 (1979), the Gimli Glider and the Cessna 188 Pacific rescue, among others. YSSYguy (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep The near-disaster has also been discussed in Neil Johnston; Nick McDonald (2017). Aviation Psychology in Practice. Routledge. pp. 109–113. ISBN 978-1840141337. (first published 1994) where it says "As a result of the Miami incident, there has been a regulatory change in the US to prevent such an accident from occurring again." The type of maintenance procedures required at the time are now prohibited. This meets WP:AIRCRASH#Aircraft articles #3 and WP:GNG with continuing coverage as well as very extensive press reporting at the time. The nomination is misconceived. Thincat (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep coverage through many, many years including academic books. This is a complete failure of every engine on a large jet, why are we even discussing this? Longstanding coverage is inevitable. 89.240.130.238 (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - notable aviation incident, easily passes GNG. Mjroots (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - although WP:AIRCRASH is an essay and shouldn't really be used in AFDs, the article still passes those requirements. More importantly it passes WP:GNG and there are plenty of other accepted similar articles. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Even though it's clear there's a consensus this is notable, and that's more than fine, I wish people would stop saying "it's [only] an essay!". Lots of the SNGs are only essays (as is WP:ATA for that matter). The fact it's only an essay isn't relevant when it's being used as a shortcut to typing out three paragraphs of "this is what the consensus on the subject is" every time it comes up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Hi The Bushranger I did not mean to imply that WP:AIRCRASH should be disregarded, quite the opposite I was stating that the article in question fits the criteria set out in WP:AIRCRASH. However the ultimate aim is WP:GNG, and in it's purpose as an essay WP:AIRCRASH and other's are suppose to be helpfully paths twords concurrences, not the end all be all. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as not noteworthy, comes under "bad day at the office" scenario, nobody hurt, kick the tires and life moves on like hundreds of other non-noteworthy incidents that happen every day. MilborneOne (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Do you know of hundreds of other major jetliner passenger flights that all engines flamed out? Are you aware of such a catastrophic failure occurring hundreds of times a day? Just like Air Canada Flight 143 or British Airways Flight 9 in which there was nobody hurt, this is far beyond a "bad day at the office." Most people's "bad day at the office" aren't significantly written about decades later by reliable sources and pass WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete, or alternatively, this could be merged into a paragraph on a list of aircraft problems. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there any argument based on actual guidelines like WP:GNG? --Oakshade (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

All references are to two NTSB reports. NTSB responds to many incidents. An NTSB report doesn't make the underlying incident notable.--Rpclod (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

As demonstrated above, there's much more than the NTSB reports in significant coverage and analysis spanning decades.--Oakshade (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rpclod: - article expanded with other sources. Mjroots (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS, a mention at List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft should be enough. An engine failure while far from an everyday occurrence is not that unusual and nobody died, so I don't see the lasting impact of the event.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• WP:NOTNEWS is not meant for incidents that have enduring notability such as this one as in-depth significant coverage has continued for decades after the incident. --Oakshade (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• This incident started with an engine shutdown due to falling oil pressure, followed by a double engine failure, meaning this three-engine aircraft become a glider until the crew managed to restart the engine they had shut down. That engine failed after the aircraft landed. The unusual circumstances are irrelevant. That the aircraft did not crash is irrelevant. If the incident received some write-ups in the news and was then forgotten about, I would be !voting delete, but this demonstrably passes the General Notability Guidelines, as there has been significant coverage - not passing mentions - of the subject, with analysis, in several books decades after the event. YSSYguy (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep, per Thincat. Daniel Case (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep gets in-depth coverage in academic sources from reputable sources such as Routledge as recently as 2017. [8] A look at other Google Books hits shows continuing coverage in the decades since the incident, meaning this passes the WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - As many editors have stated above, this incident attracted the attention of many journalists and authors in the years following. In addition, the flight crew each received an award from ALPA. These are not given out for anything less than outstanding airmanship. Mjroots (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - On the surface this is an easy delete as a non notable event. Additional digging reveals lots of substantial coverage long after the incident. - Samf4u (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2018 (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.