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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Air Lines Flight 3452[edit]

Eastern Air Lines Flight 3452 (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)

Fails WP:EVENTCRITERIA. The article itself says that during the runway excursion the aircraft had minimal damage (i.e. no hull loss) and no one was injured (let alone died), so this sets the inclusion bar for accidents quite low. Brandmeister^talk 11:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This accident , aside from involving a Vice Presidential candidate during a campaign, is actually significant because nothing happened, as the engineered materials arrestor system prevented the aircraft from sliding completely off the runway in a manner similar to Southwest Airlines Flight 1248, which could have had untold effects to the Donald Trump Campaign. Furthermore, ASL Airlines Hungary Flight 7332, another runway overshoot this year was listed as notable, despite no injuries to the crew and limited aircraft damage. Additionally, passenger injuries (and even death), as well as damage or destruction of an aircraft are not good markers for inclusion of notability, as the crash last year of a Hawker-Siddley Business Jet in Akron Ohio killed 8 people, yet was not deemed notable enough to stay in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Zadeh (talk • contribs) 14:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is a single news event that is not notable within the larger campaign. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.--Rpclod (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - This incident is significant as it could play a role in the outcome of a Presidential Campaign. True Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but how many insignificant articles that don't involve a potential Vice President are on Wikipedia. And even if he, and his running mate should lose the election, he is still the sitting Governor of Indiana, which is also significant.--Subman758 (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The presence of other insignificant articles that should probably be deleted is not justification for keeping another non-notable article. Sario528 (talk) 11:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - what about that time Pence was about to cross a street and a car drove past, just missing him; if things had been different something might have happened that could play a role in the outcome of a Presidential Campaign. But, nothing did happen. This might be worth a one-sentence mention somewhere, but an entire article? No, does not meet the general notability guidelines. YSSYguy (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- As previously mentioned, the successful use of engineered materials arrestor system alone makes this a notable incident. Causalities/Hull loss is NOT a deciding factor in aircraft incidents, as seen with Northwest Airlines Flight 253, but rather the individual significance of such events. Secondly, the fact that this incident involved a well established airline carrying an important political figure in a large metropolitan area (again, similar to Southwest Airlines Flight 1248 and especially Southwest Airlines Flight 1455) is enough to make this incident notable. Lastly, it would be too hasty to remove this article purely because we do not know what kind of effect this may have on the operator, Eastern Air Lines (2015), or the EMAS system development. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but it is a very important database of many incidents, no matter how small they may subjectively seem. In the end, I recommend we wait out for the results of the investigation. However, I feel the article needs more relevant photos and more information, this alone would help immensely. MilesSilvagni (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Engineered_materials_arrestor_system#Incidents lists at least nine such incidents with EMAS where it seems nobody died. None of them has an article and I doubt this one will be more prominent in the long run. At best this could be succinctly mentioned in 2016 in aviation and Eastern Air Lines. Brandmeister^talk 16:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom - single event, probably no lasting news coverage. A mention on the engineered materials arrestor system seems warranted (it's there), but nowhere else,not even Eastern's page. - BilCat (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the article itself says No one on board the airplane was injured, and damage to the airplane was minimal so doesnt meet normal criteria for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As mentioned above, not all notable aviation incidents involve damage to the aircraft or harm to passengers, such as Northwest Airlines Flight 253 or EgyptAir Flight 181, and some crashes that involved the total destruction of the aircraft and the deaths of all onboard, such as the crash of a Hawker business jet in Akron Ohio have been deleted from Wikipedia for not being noteworthy. Joseph Zadeh
    • Northwest Airlines Flight 253 involved the real threat of explosives and EgyptAir Flight 181 was a real hijacking. Here it's just EMAS at work when virtually nothing happened. Brandmeister^talk 12:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment- "Virtually nothing happened" and "real threat". You refer to EgyptAir 181, where the hijacker created what was essentially an unplanned detour using a belt full of old cell phones (which posed no threat), yet believe an airliner carrying a major political figure in the 2016 election almost careening into NYC traffic, only being stopped by a device only used in emergencies to be less dangerous and not even noteworthy? Yes, there was danger and yes, there will be consequences down the line. Frankly, I do not understand why this was put up for deletion, unless we have an EAL executive lurking on this website.MilesSilvagni (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfounded accusations about lurking EAL executives are not helpful, and can be taken as a personal attack on other editors. I realize you're new to the AFD process, but please avoid such in the future, and Assume Good Faith. Most of the editors supporting the article's deletion have been on WP for a long time, and have participated in many AFD discussions involving aircraft accidents and incidents. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• MERGE to the Trump 2016 campaign article, as it is an incident during the campaign, and the airplane in question was carrying TRUMP 2016 election livery. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's too insignificant an event to merge, especially into that large article that already has already had so many things cut from it to keep the size manageable. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It dominated a news cycle, so could easily deserve few sentences or a paragraph. Thus a merge can be done. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS — JFG ^talk 08:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. It was a story in its immediacy that has received no followup coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - By that logic, the crashes of American Airlines Flight 383,FedEx Express Flight 910, ASL Airlines Hungary Flight 7332, and several other aviation accidents/incidents would be eligible for deletion as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Zadeh (talk • contribs) 21:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't try to !vote multiple times. And, "other stuff exists" is never a valid argument for notability.--Rpclod (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding "other stuff exists", it's not never a valid argument (as the linked essay states in the first paragraph: These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid.), but in this case, the three articles have not been extensively discussed. They might very well be eligible for deletion as well, so we should not justify this article with the existence of those articles. ASL Airlines Hungary Flight 7332 even had an an AfD that resulted in no consensus, meaning its notability isn't clear either. Mz7 (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per WP:NEVENTS, Wikipedia should only cover events with lasting significance or persistent coverage. There were no fatalities, no hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft, and there is no indication that this incident is really impactful for the aviation industry. Perhaps this would be suitable for a newspaper story, but not an encyclopedia. Mz7 (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW it's not an aviation story, it's a political story. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps at most I could see this getting a sentence or two at an article about the Trump campaign. It's inappropriate as a topic for a standalone encyclopedia article. Mz7 (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2016 (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.