Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwest Airlines Flight 1392

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 - After re-listing, it is quite clear there to keep the article. If there is a desire to rename it as suggested in the extended discussion, that should be done on the talk page. Fuzheado | Talk 16:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Airlines Flight 1392[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I don't see what's notable about this. One person got killed by a landing plane, that's extremely unfortunate but I don't see how having a full article about this contributes anything useful to the encyclopedia. If multiple people were killed, it would've made more sense to make a article. ShadowCyclone talk 12:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ShadowCyclone talk 12:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The incident involved a large transport-category aircraft and has attracted substantial national press coverage, so it meets general notability guidelines, despite the absence of injuries to persons aboard the aircraft. To cite two examples, Delta Air Lines Flight 89 and American Airlines Flight 910 meet WP:GNG and have Wikipedia articles despite a lack of onboard injuries or significant damage to the airliner. Carguychris (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to History of Southwest Airlines#2020s or Southwest Airlines#Accidents and incidents. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unusual incident. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a major contributor to the page. It meets GNG threefold, and plenty of other articles are also about an airline fault resulting in 1 death or less (per Carguychris). dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 00:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I cant see how a sucide is the fault of the airline. MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While there have been a few incidents in the past couple of years of people in the US climbing over airport fences and climbing onto or trying to climb onto a transport category aircraft while on the runway or taxiway, this is the only incident I can recall where someone has actually been killed. In addition, according to CBS, the plane did sustain very noticeable damage to its #1 engine. - Omega13a (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am usually very quick to nominate articles unworthy of mainspace, but this one patenetly is. All sorts of questions and all the likely answers will confirm the notability of this article!--Petebutt (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment This is a good example of why articles on this sort of incident shouldn't be written on the day they happen. If the only additions to the article, in a year, are the name of the victim and "authorities could not determine what he was doing on the runway," are we going to go through another AfD in which a burst of routine coverage is used to argue that every plane incident is notable? Really, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON: too many responses above are saying that it might prove notable based upon ongoing coverage which hasn't had a chance to happen yet. I'm not going to argue for deletion because it's obvious that's going to be ignored as it stands, but the incident is not, from what I've seen here, notable yet. Mangoe (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing here to indicate that there will be any lasting effects to this incident beyond the one death and some bent metal (which has likely already been repaired). This is exactly why we have the policy of WP:NOTNEWS. - Ahunt (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not particularly notable and really falls into WP:NOTNEWS, wikipedia is not a tabloid. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Ahunt:, @MilborneOne:, so why can't we redirect with history? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Because of the policy WP:NOTNEWS - it is just a news item, not notable in the overall history of the airline. - Ahunt (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Actually, it does fit well here. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see that it has already been added there. Keep in mind that the airline has had hundreds of incidents in its history and only a few are listed there. This one is too minor to even be included and also note that it really has very little to do with the airline. It was not any failing on the part of the airline and is not going to result in any changes in airline procedures (airport maybe, but not airline). It could have been any aircraft he stood in front of, so hardly bares on the history of this airline, in any notable manner. - Ahunt (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Redirect to History of Southwest Airlines#2020s or Southwest Airlines#Accidents and incidents. 75.176.100.61 (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and possibly Rename Austin–Bergstrom International Airport runway incident) When there's a post-9/11 security breach at a major American airport that allows an unauthorized person to literally wander out on a runway and cause death or injury to either passengers, aviation employees or themselves, it would be willful ignorance to believe there will no thorough review and revision of security regulations and practices at all a major airports. Oakshade (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we can keep the article for Southwest Airlines Flight 1248, we should also be able to keep the crash for this incident. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Too soon to keep This accident was notable as very unusual as involving a big airliner and with the location of the accident on a runway. But there is yet no proof of what really happens and if finally there is something interesting to learn so WP:TOOSOON unless we have significant continuing news coverage. Wykx (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very few people actually read the non-guideline WP:TOOSOON before referencing it. WP:TOOSOON is about not creating articles of subjects that have not yet had significant coverage by reliable sources and passing WP:GNG which doesn't apply to this article. It's not about banning topics that only recently had significant coverage. Oakshade (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most of the discussion took place 2 days after the incident. We can look from some distance now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 20:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable security incident; thus rename to Austin–Bergstrom International Airport runway incident. The incident is not related to the safety of the airline or the aircraft, so I would oppose a redirect to the airline's history. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with suggestion to move the article, although I suggest naming it 2020 Austin–Bergstrom International Airport runway incident per WP:DAB. With no injuries aboard the aircraft, no mention of NTSB involvement in major sources, and the aircraft back in service only 3 days later, this barely even meets the definition of an aviation incident, much less an accident. What makes this event notable is the security breach, and the article should discuss it as such. Carguychris (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an unsusual aviation accident. The person wasn't an airplane employee either, making it more unusual as well, as only airport employees are allowed on airport grounds.ThatOneWikiMaster (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the arguments for deletion made here don't convince me, sorry - an incident's death count has little to do with its notability or lasting notability. The coverage received about this very unusual incident is more than routine or trivial, and easily passes WP:GNG. The fact that a security breach of this extent can happen in an airport in the United States, especially since the existence of the TSA, is alarming and adds to its significance. There is no doubt the findings of the ongoing investigations [1] will be extensively discussed by major media sources. Zingarese talk · contribs 02:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll be quite happy to step up and doubt away. If such ongoing coverage appears, then I will not oppose recreating an article; until then, we're in WP:CRYSTAL territory. Mangoe (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does WP:CRYSTAL have anything to do with this incident that already occurred? Zingarese talk · contribs 02:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um, basing notability on coverage that hasn't happened yet? Mangoe (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry- but where did I base notability on “coverage that hasn’t happened yet?” I said above The coverage received about this very unusual incident is more than routine or trivial, and easily passes WP:GNG. Certainly the coverage vis-a-vis the investigation’s findings could further strengthen this incident’s notability, but its notability at present is already clear enough. Zingarese talk · contribs 13:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except that isn't the case here. Sure it made the news when it happened, as the news stations jumped on it, then nothing. Classic case of WP:NOTNEWS. - Ahunt (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then something. A week later the NYT and other outlets reported the FAA is doing a thorough investigation of this and it's considered "rare."[2][3]Oakshade (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All accidents are investigated, nothing notable there. - Ahunt (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your contention was there was a spurt of coverage and then "nothing." That was wrong. Not all accidents are this unusual, have this much WP:GNG passing coverage nor are all accidents as rare as this one. Oakshade (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's enough coverage and investigation of this incident to justify the article's existence. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject clearly meets WP:GNG and the three is adequate wide coverage about this subject. Abishe (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - per the above arguments, article seems to meet basic WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2020 (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.