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.
Keep Too soon. Planes dumping fuel may be routine, but a plane dumping fuel at low altitude in a dense city with the inevitable resulting lawsuits and ongoing coverage is certainly not routine. There may be
WP:LASTING effects with an FAA investigation, so maybe renominate in due course if that's not the case.----
Pontificalibus13:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge to
fuel dumping since that's the only aspect of the incident that seems to be of any note, and the latter article doesn't talk about the effects on the ground of the dumped fuel. Even if there are FAA findings they are likely to be specific to that practice.
Mangoe (
talk)
14:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - Characterizing this as a routine fuel dump ignores everything about this story. It is a highly unusual aviation incident for an aircraft in the US to dump large amounts of fuel at low altitude over a heavily populated area. While the victims weren’t aboard the aircraft, this incident caused dozens of injuries (
Now up to 60 reported), and is receiving substantial media attention and a full government investigation. There’s little doubt this is a sufficiently notable aviation incident. The article needs improvement, but that’s not a valid reason to AfD it.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
18:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete/Merge to
fuel dumping for same reasons as Mangoe and
WP:NOT. Other than the schoolkids zero notability. Fuel dumping is normal emergency operating procedure. The Captain failed to comply, no dramas no notability, the same as "the driver failed to stop at a stop sign"!!--
Petebutt (
talk)
01:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Added to the article again; this incident has now led to
call for new safety policies at another airport (Sea-Tac) to have a response for surrounding communities if a fuel dump on the community occurred there. This incident is now driving discussions of safety reforms beyond the neighborhood where it occurred, which further demonstrates likelihood of lasting notability.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
19:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)reply
The procedures were not at fault. They were not adhered to!! Sea-Tac only knee-jerking. We don't have articles on wikipedia because someones knee jerked!!--
Petebutt (
talk)
19:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)reply
We do have articles about incidents on Wikipedia because they led to policy or procedure changes, though. If this incident is driving new demands for emergency response plans specific to fuel dumping on densely populated areas near major airports, and is the catalyst for that demand for change, that alone makes this incident notable. For determining notability it doesn’t matter if you think new ERPs are really needed in your opinion, it only matters that calls to action driven by this incident exist, which at this point they do. If that never materializes into meaningful change and this incident fades into obscurity, this page can be re-nominated for deletion in a year or two, but for now there’s clearly sufficient indicia of notability and deletion is inappropriate.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
20:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge as discussed above; even if the incident ultimately results in changes to aviation safety regulations, these are best discussed in the article about fuel dumping.
Carguychris (
talk)
14:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
But that would conflict with the usual policy that large aircraft incidents are notable if they result in changes to regulations or procedures. Why the inconsistency?
Shelbystripes (
talk)
17:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep highly unusual incident (fuel dumped on children's playground, causing casualties), generated significant media attention. Will likely have an impact on aviation regulations.
Brycehughes (
talk)
19:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. An unusual incident that received international coverage. There's an investigation and CNN is reporting that a lawsuit has been filed, so there's probably going to be additional coverage.
Johndavies837 (
talk)
02:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - I don't oppose a review later on after all the coverage blows over, but for now the event is gaining more and more coverage each day. With what looks like a major upcoming lawsuit, I'd wait. Plus it seems to pass GNG as of now anyways so a review may be unnecessary in the future. ––
Redditaddict69(talk)(contribs)18:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - While dumping fuel is a common occurrence (because planes must dump fuel in order to land shortly after takeoff as the plane would be too heavy to land full of fuel), the way the pilot dumped fuel in this flight is very uncommon and has caused injuries. Pilots are not supposed to dump fuel at such low altitude, and not over populated areas. The breach in protocol makes this flight notable for a Wikipedia article.
Banana Republic (
talk)
03:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - The plane dumped fuel over elementary schools, injuring people on the ground. As they are not supposed to do this, this makes this incident notable enough to be an article.
ThatOneWikiMaster (
talk)
21:25, 20 January 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.