Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwest Airlines Flight 3472

:{{la|Southwest Airlines Flight 3472}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_3472 Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Southwest Airlines Flight 3472}})

WP:GNG - non-notable accident, no fatalities, no other reasons for notability, no hull loss, etc. etc.. Whilst the incident is interesting, it is, thankfully, a rare operational hazard of operating gas turbine engined aircraft Petebutt (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - Let’s examine a few reasons why:
• 1. Notability - This article meets Wikipedia’s standard of notability. Wikipedia’s standards are “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.” Multiple mainstream and local news sources reported on this incident, a simple Google search confirms this.

• 2. Commercial Airliner (large jet) - The plane in question was from a top commercial airliner in the US. It was not a light aircraft or military plane. See WP:AIRCRASH

• 3. Substantial and Unique Damage - There was substantial damage (NTSB’s own words) to the plane and the engine which caught fire and had to be extinguished. The damage was also unique. While there is debris that gets flung from an uncontained engine failure, very rarely does is penetrate the fuselage causing a failure in cabin pressure and narrowly miss passengers or damage critical flight controls which included the wing, vertical stabilizer, and horizontal stabilizer. A great rundown by an aviation safety expert about the rarity and seriousness of this incidence is found here https://www.quora.com/How-dangerous-is-an-engine-failure-for-a-737

• 4. Uncontained Engine Failure - An uncontained engine failure is a serious and rare occurrence (your own words), unlike the more common and less reported engine failures due to compressor stalls, bird strikes, or pressure/heat problems. It has it’s own wiki page and list of incidences due to its importance. An uncontained engine event occurs when an engine failure results in fragments of rotating engine parts penetrating and exiting through the engine case which is designed to stop it. Uncontained turbine engine disk failures within an aircraft engine present a direct hazard to an airplane and its passengers because high-energy disk fragments can penetrate the cabin or fuel tanks, damage flight control surfaces, or sever flammable fluid or hydraulic lines (in older planes).

• 5. Public Demand - By using the US Google search for Southwest Flight 3472, three of the most used search terms include the word “wiki” at the end of it. People are looking for the wikipedia article because they most likely curious about what happened and desire a summary of the incident and follow up. Many of the news articles I also came across failed to have all the information on the incident in one place like the engine type, tail number, sequence of events, first hand accounts, investigation proceedings, etc. While this may seem like a non-worhty incident to a self-claimed international pilot like you living outside the U.S. with thousands of flight hours, it has a much different impression for the general public, especially in the country that it affected.

• 6. “Hull loss and Injuries” - Requiring hull loss or injuries as a requirement for notability is an arbitrary measure that would invalidate many aviation incidents already up on Wikipedia and therefore be inconsistent with past editorial judgement. On the current Southwest Airlines page and uncontained engine failure page there are incidences listed that resulted in zero injuries yet are not deleted due to the importance. An incident should not be valued on if there were no death or injuries but on its notability, rarity, and public demand. Hierophantus (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No sustained media notice past September. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• If that's the standard then the same argument for deletion could apply to American Airlines Flight 383 (2016) and a variety of other articles. Both Southwest and American were not routine incidences but rare and serious ones and they have enduring notability due to ongoing investigations and the fact that the engines they use are on planes across the world. Also, length of media coverage on a topic has no basis on notability. "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary The fact that the NTSB investigation is not fully completed for either of them, which may lead to FAA or Boeing recommendations that impact all airliners in its class, makes your recommendation fall directly in line with WP:RAPID Hierophantus (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep-Significant to Southwest's record, rare type of incident.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Delete not particularly noteworth and wikipedia is not a news, nobody injuried, possibly not even noteworthy for a mention on the SWA page. MilborneOne (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Uncontained engine failure is a serious and rare occurrence. Not to mention it is significant to Southwest's, a major airline, record. Also, it is my understanding that this incident is still under investigation so we don't know if it will lead to any important changes. Omega13a (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Uncontained engine failures are not that rare (about 15 a year in the United States) most as in this case do not have a "serious" outcome. Fail to see why the effect on Southwest is significant, they have aircraft with technical issues all the time. MilborneOne (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• - You claim 15 uncontained engine failures happen a year in the U.S., this is completely false. This CBS report that cites international safety statistics says there are about 25 incidents a year "internationally" involving a jet engine failing either in flight or on the ground which includes all forms of engine failure, contained and uncontained. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jet-engine-failures-rare-usually-not-fatal/ Also, out of all the uncontained engine failures that do happen, even fewer end up puncturing the fuselage and causing cabin decompression and damaging the critical flight surfaces (wings, horizontal and vertical stabilizers). Hierophantus (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - this was not a run-of-the-mill engine failure, uncontained or not. It is probably one of the most serious uncontained engine failures not to have resulted in the loss of an aircraft. Final report not out yet, once it is, then maybe that is the time to re-evaluate the accident. Mjroots (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - Passes WP:AIRCRASH. Notability is not temporary. Smartyllama (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.