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. Nobody except the nominator advocates deletion and a merge/move discussion can be initiated on the articles talk page. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JetBlue Airways Flight 292[edit]

JetBlue Airways Flight 292 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This incident doesn't meet the criteria for WP:AIRCRASH. It did get extensive news coverage, but that was mostly videos of the plane circling in order to dump fuel. Since then, coverage has been minimal. Remember WP:PERSISTENCE William 00:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 00:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -William 00:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 00:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nom and the two guidelines mentioned by the nom (although WP:AIRCRASH is not an official guideline and WP:PERSISTANCE is merely a suggestion in a guideline) and easily passing WP:GNG. While there is absolutely no requirement in WP:EVENT or anywhere that news coverage must continue for a long duration after an event, this has continued to get coverage years later in books and newspapers. [1][2][3][4]. Passes the non-guideline WP:AIRCRASH's "The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry" as the NTSB, after extensive testing and research, determined that it was caused by fractured nosewheel lugs as well as "lack of procedure" to attempt to reset the the Brake Steering Control Unit under these conditions and that Airbus has made a design change to correct this issue as well as issued new flight crew procedures. --Oakshade (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • • WP:ATA is only an essay too, but it gets used pretty extensively. ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not copy some of the info to an article about Jet Blue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjiird2011 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Airbus A320 or create a new article Airbus A320 family landing gear incidents. This problem affected at least six other aircraft. This one just happened to be on a slow news day in L.A. Airbus had already identified the problem and issued a maintenance advisory when this incident occurred. Note that this has already been discussed on the article's talk page. Pburka (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's only occasionally do I come across the non-existent WP:SLOWNEWSDAY clause. Coverage wasn't just local to Los Angeles, but very heavily nationally and internationally (I guess Hurricane Rita [5], Simon Wiesenthal dying [6] and 12 Americans slain in Iraq is evidence of a "slow news day"). --Oakshade (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's actually the 3rd AfD for this. Please also see the article talk page where N419BH has ideas for merging the content into a more comprehensive article on Airbus landing gear failures. LoveUxoxo (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now - this was a notable, significant incident. It probably should be merged into an Airbus landing gear incidents article when that is written, but that's outside AfD's remit - so keep for now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is a well written article that has been edited and updated by numerous people on Wikipedia since 2009. Why delete all that work now? It was a memorable incident - particularly with the people on board being able to watch live videos of their own plane crash landing from the live news feeds. Anyone researching these sort of events would find this article a fascinating and informative summary of the event. It has been well edited by experts in the field since it was originally written. BritAirman (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whether the article is well written or not or memorable isn't the point. Is this incident encyclopedic? Most non-fatal airline incidents aren't. Some fatal air crashes, cargo planes or commuter planes that have articles at Wikipedia, should really merit a few lines in an article on the airport or the aircraft that are lost. They're written up because they happened in the last 10 years. WP is becoming a great chronicle of the last 10 years. Lexi Thompson who has won two major league tournaments has oodles written about her, Kathy Whitworth winner of 88 LPGA Tournaments between 1962 and 1984, not so much. A sense of perspective is missing but Recentism is not.- William 22:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comparisons to golf players might be interesting to some, but article topics that adhere to Wikipeida notability guidelines like WP:GNG (plus WP:PERSISTENCE which you valued in your nom statement) as this article does is what we use to help us decide article inclusion, not subjective "I don't think these type of topics are notable" generalizations. Some articles don't pass non-guidelines like WP:AIRCRASH or sub-guidlines but do pass WP:NOTABILITY and its WP:GNG which trumps the lesser ones, not the other way around. Feel free to make improvements to the golf player Kathy Whitworth article, but that has nothing to do with the notability of this one. --Oakshade (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2012 (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.