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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Airlines Flight 1883[edit]

Continental Airlines Flight 1883 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This event involved an aircraft touching down on a taxiway. There were no injuries, no damage, and everything was all right. WP:NOT#NEWS applies. Quoting the only working reference, the MSNBC article: "Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, for instance, had three such landings over a recent four-year span" If this same scenario happened three times at one airport over a four year span, one can see that this happens more than one might think. Therefore, I simply don't think this is that notable. Tavix |  Talk  18:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see my discussion of these issues in the AfD talk page. AFAICT, there was only a single similar event at Sea-Tac of a jet airliner landing on a taxiway there, and it was apparently in the daytime, because the cited expert says that at night such events would be unlikely. In addition, the specific Sea-Tac taxiway is broad and located at the outer boundary of the field, which would be easier to mistake for a runway. In contrast, the Newark taxiway is an internal one, adjacent to the ramp and buildings, and is relatively narrow. I am not aware of any similar events anywhere else in the U.S., and Google only comes up with the Sea-Tac and Newark ones (though I have found a couple overseas). Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Absolutely non-notable. WP:NOTNEWS Niteshift36 (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or merge to the article about the Newark airport). Pilot error that, fortunately, did not end in disaster. Mandsford (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not worth merging, there's nothing substantive that belongs in the article about EWR. StarM 01:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:AIRCRASH. I would at first have gone for unusual circumstances, but that MSNBC quote indicates otherwise. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable per WP:AIRCRASH, with additional sources. To reduce clutter here, I am posting my message to the closing admin on the discussion page. I will add the sources to the article, and spruce it up as needed. Crum375 (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the new sources to the article and spruced it up a bit. Crum375 (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Tree Karma (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I believe that this is a notable incident, but that's not clear from the dull and prosaic way that the article is written. The lead sentence currently says "Continental Flight 1883 was a Boeing 757-224, registration N17105, on a scheduled domestic passenger flight from Orlando, Florida to Newark, New Jersey, with 148 passengers and October 28, 2006, with no reported injuries or damage." How about revising that to something like "Continental Flight 1883 was involved in a near-miss incident when a Boeing jet mistakenly landed on an airport taxiway in Newark, New Jersey, on October 28, 2006"? My objective is to focus the lead on the notable aspects of the article; the details can follow later. Additionally, the article probably could say more about what airline safety experts have said about the implications of the incident. --Orlady (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good points. I started working on that in the Aftermath, but you are right that it should be added to the lead.Crum375 (talk)
    • I added your points to the lead, and more detail to the Aftermath section. Crum375 (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is an incident, not an accident, WP:NOTNEWS. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is an incident, as is noted in its infobox. But WP:AIRCRASH specifically includes incidents, if they meet certain criteria. This one meets two of those criteria, of which only one is needed for WP inclusion. And WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here, because it's not the news aspect of this event which makes it notable. The two criteria are: it's very rare (per source), and it caused changes in the safety procedures at Newark Airport, both on the ground and in the air. To emphasize, any single one of these criteria alone would meet the requirements of WP:AIRCRASH. Please see the rationale on the discussion page. Crum375 (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not convinced by WP:AIRCRASH since it's a guideline essay and not policy, but given that enough people seem to have accepted the guideline essay as sensible, I'm removing my delete !vote and switching to Neutral. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have added another section on the talk page of this AfD addressing the issue of the relative "rareness" of taxiway landings. Crum375 (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Still being reported on two years later as inquiries and investigations are being completed. I'm making this arguement on grounds of per WP:N itself even if it arguably stretches WP:AIRCRASH (one could certainly argue it does not). Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 07:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fail to see any real long term notability. I'm also surprised that further discussion was needed when the consensus was to delete this )7-0) Corpx (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP:AIRCRASH criteria that this article meets are not related to newspaper notability, but to uniqueness and lasting effects on air safety. We have a veteran air traffic controller stating he is not aware of any precedent in his 18 years on the job, and AP reporting that aviation experts consider a taxiway landing by an airliner a "rare event."[1] As far as effect on aviation safety, two new arrival procedures were established at Newark to replace the one used by the airliner, and the runway/taxiway lighting differentials at the airport have been changed as a result of the incident, as documented by the NTSB.[2] This incident was investigated and reported by the NTSB, and that alone makes it notable in general, since it gets widely published and is retained indefinitely in the NTSB's accident/incident online database. The less significant incidents are investigated (if needed) by the FAA, and rarely have a full investigation, as this one did. As I noted above, you only need one criterion to establish notability per WP:AIRCRASH, and this one meets at least two, in addition to the full NTSB investigation and report for general notability. Crum375 (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for "why is this relisted?", I believe that the article's creator had not been notified about this AfD discussion. --Orlady (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm swayed by the argument that the incident created a change in procedure or launched a significant investigation, etc. It is notable primarily within the field, not as a newspaper headline for the public, but that makes it no less notable. Drawn Some (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It did result in two new procedures as per WP:AIRCRASH, so it falls into the qualifiers therein. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't really apply, since this happened something like 3 years ago. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 23:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeni, nobody here is suggesting to Keep because of the incident's news value. The arguments for Keep are based on WP:AIRCRASH and general notability. AIRCRASH allows including aviation incident articles which are unique or have a lasting safety impact. This article meets both criteria, as elaborated on the AfD's discussion page. In addition, by virtue of being investigated fully by the NTSB (and not the FAA which investigates the non-notable incidents), the full report has been published on the NTSB's website and is available for the public to read, including aviation safety professionals. This, as well as the aviation safety related articles cited in the article, makes the event notable in its own right, beyond the AIRCRASH requirements. Again, none of these inclusion criteria are related to the intrinsic news value. Crum375 (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can I point out that WP:AIRCRASH is only a WikiProject guideline, the article must satisfy proper Wikipedia criteria, which it does not. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 00:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, this has been pointed out and discussed above. It's actually technically an "essay", but it is the only written guidance we have for the inclusion of aviation incidents, and to the best of my knowledge, it is used routinely by the community. But even if you decide to ignore it, you still have general notability criteria to consider. If the Federal Government spends resources and investigates an incident fully, including taking test flights around the airport with many experts on board to evaluate the visible airport lighting conditions, and then publishes the results in its main aviation safety repository, that's notable. If there are two new arrival procedures at Newark Airport created and published directly as a result of this event and its investigation, that's notable (can you point out any other incident that has had that happen in recent years?). If the incident resulted in a change in differential lighting settings for all night operations at Newark (and likely elsewhere), to better differentiate taxiways from runways at night, that's notable. In the category of aviation incidents, which we allow in principle on WP, this one is one of the most notable that I can think of. Also, consider what would have happened had there been personnel, vehicles, equipment or other aircraft on that taxiway that evening. A major disaster, with the possible loss of life of all 154 on board, plus others on the ground, with high "notability" among the non-professional public. For aviation safety professionals, whose responsibility it is to prevent the next occurrence, "notability" is not measured in lives lost, but lives which can be saved. Wikipedia caters to everyone, including aviation professionals and those interested in the topic. Crum375 (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; per Usrnme h8er. Rare incident, sparked full NTSB investigation. Nevard (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Almost any commercial aicraft mishap gets a NTSB investigation. That's what the NTSB does. This is a minor incident that falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Also fails WP:AIRCRASH. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the NTSB database. Can you find one incident (not accident), involving a part 121 major carrier passenger jet airliner which: a. was fully investigated by the NTSB; b. has a "Post-Incident Safety Changes" section; c. resulted in one or more new published procedure(s) for the use by all pilots (e.g. new arrival procedures at a major airport); and d. resulted in new operating procedures at a major airport (e.g. runway/taxiway differential lighting settings)? Note that WP:AIRCRASH notability criteria for airliner incidents include material changes in industry or aircraft procedures as a result of the incident; can you find another incident which meets this requirement? Also, check our List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft, which are all linked to wiki articles. Can you find an article of an aviation airliner incident which you believe is more notable, and explain why? (Note that Gimli Glider was classified as an accident, so it doesn't count.) Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Aside from the guideline which Crum referred to, the fact that the NTSB wrote an extensive report and issued reccommendations after this incident is noteworthy. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The revised article cites multiple sources and clearly identifies the aspects of this incident that make it worthy of attention and that have had a lasting impact. --Orlady (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to Keep The extensive rescue work has convinced me of notability. Good job, now easily meets WP:AIRCRASH etc. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.