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 of the debate was Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fawcett5 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JetBlue Airways Flight 292[edit]

An article about a plane that made an emergency landing. This belongs on Wikinews and not Wikipedia. Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, an incident like the others on wikipedia. The initial information and the subsequent analysis is noteworthy as an encyclopedic entry. Florihupf 01:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, an incident like the others on wikipedia. The initial information and the subsequent analysis is noteworthy as an encyclopedic entry. CoolGuy 01:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The event is a part, albeit minor, of U.S. aviation history. There will be plenty of interest in it. And Wikipedia is not paper. Bbpen 01:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, amazing anyone has the nerve to nominate a worthy event as such for deletion. Phoenix2 01:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; as mentioned on its talk page, this is a notable landing. --DanielNuyu 01:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per above. TomStar81 01:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there will be more news on this. Grant-o 01:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• K obviously. Fawcett5 01:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, aviation enthuasiasts have just as much right to articles interesting them, as you do to having articles on obscure things in Family Guy and The Simpsons. -- User:zanimum
• Keep, silly. Nominated for delete because it didn't explode, I guess? --Garrett 01:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, This is a significant event. Yes it is news but it is something that will be remembered as a near-disaster, yet still a happy ending -- 69.251.48.244
• Keep this significant aviation incident. It doesn't have to be a great disaster to be notable.--Pharos 01:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Significant incidents like this are worthy of an article. --Fjarlq 01:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just wondering what the statistics are for emergency landings. How many are there a year? A month? Will we be having articles on every one? Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wouldn't bother me at all if there was one article per emergency landing. --Fjarlq 01:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wouldn't bother me either, but it is a good question as a baseline: How many emergency landings are there a year? Does anyone know?--Pharos 02:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A summary of aviation accidents for August 2005 can be found on the NTSB website, there are a few per day worldwide: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/AccList.asp?month=8&year=2005 --Fjarlq 02:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Imagine if we kept every emergency procedure due to equipment failure? -Lethe | Talk 01:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If we kept every emergency procedure due to equipment failure then we'd have a more-complete encyclopedia. —BenFrantzDale 02:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep An incident that occupies three hours of commercial free national news merits an article on Wikipedia. Jendeyoung 01:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second that, and it was made even more significant because it somewhat cutaway from their what is going to be 24-7 coverage of Rita. Phoenix2 02:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I third it for the same reason. Bart133 (t) 02:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. Bart133 (t) 02:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in agreement with all above, and in hope that the article will be expanded with more news and why the event happened. Significant. — CuaHL 02:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a non-notable equipment failure. The fact that the article consists for a large part of meaningless "coincidences" doesn't help much either. --fvw* 02:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and close this vote as quickly as possible. This article didn't start out looking like much (hence my comments on the talk page), but it's starting to become a solid record of an event that people might be interested in in the future. -- SCZenz 02:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not an ordinary emergency landing, could of been catastrophic. --69.104.18.190 02:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep useful record for anyone studying these types of incidents. Johntex\^talk 02:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not an ordinary emergency landing, could of been catastrophic. --.::Imdaking::. ^{Bow | DOWN} 02:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A good portion of the United States were glued to these television broadcasts. --AGENT 424 02:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And Canada. I was watching The Apprentice: Martha Stewart, and wouldn't even have known until tomorrow morning unless these two guys came into the college lounge and asked me to switch the channel to CP24. -- user:zanimum

• Merge to JetBlue since I think this is the airlines first mark against them in the safety department. Zach (Sound Off) 02:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. -- ElBenevolente 02:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's an isolated incident that made front-page news. That makes it notable in my book. —BenFrantzDale 02:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Thats why are an encylopedia --Rogerd 02:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Calling this incident "significant" is as pretty big stretch... and claiming that a good portion of the US were tuned into the broadcast pertaining to this is probably an excellent example of hyperbole... but it is a well written article that may be of interest to someone, particularly someone interested in aviation.--Isotope23 16:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. [1] Enough said. - Mike МиГ 22:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not the most important thing in the world, I'll grant that, but if we threw out all the not-so-important stuff we'd only need a few thousand articles.Kevin M Marshall 22:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It occupied all this TV time and hell, like the article said, if the TVs remained on, they would have been the first plane ever to watch themselves on national television. --Saint-Paddy 23:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia should have more articles like this. It's topical, it's interesting to lots of people, it's well written, it shows off Wikipedia as having the sort of article that other lesser encyclopedias lack. Why would anyone want to delete it? -- 00:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabalamat (talk • contribs) 00:33, 23 September 2005
• Keep. 1. For the most part, the article is well-written and informative about an event plenty of people were and are interested in, and contains a great accompanying photograph. 2. This incident may be related to a flaw in the Airbus A320, which the investigation may determine. 3. There are detailed articles on things like Aqua Teen Hunger Force including passages such as, and I quote, "Meatwad ... is a spherical mass of compressed meat that was not approved for human consumption. He has a face sporting a lone tooth protruding downward from his upper gums. He has the power to change his shape into things such as an an igloo or hot dog." Yet, people are talking about deleting an article on an aviation incident involving scores of real, live humans in real, live danger. Neurophyre 01:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - agree with above statements. -Hoekenheef 01:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This was not a typical emergency landing; it was a major, highly notable occurrence. The fact that the plane didn't crash doesn't change that. —Lifeisunfair 01:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and delist early. This article is probably getting a lot of traffic and it shouldn't have an ugly AFD header. Rhobite 01:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We need more good news these days.
• 'Keep -RadioActive 09:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not only are commercial airline incidents generally notable, this one is even more notable than the average non-fatal accident because it was caused by a recurring problem, and the passengers were able to watch television regarding their own fates during the disaster, which is apparently the first time that's ever happened. —Cleared as filed. 11:14, 23 September 2005 (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.