Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Air Lines Flight 89 (3rd nomination)

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. Please wait more than 2 months before renominating an article that was Kept at an AFD discussion. If you want to renominate, 6-12 months (or several years) is a more appropriate waiting period. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Delta Air Lines Flight 89

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Delta Air Lines Flight 89
• Articles for deletion/Delta Air Lines Flight 89 (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Delta Air Lines Flight 89 (3rd nomination)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Delta Air Lines Flight 89 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Not very notable, seeing as the only notability about this article is the fact that the fuel was dumped on a school Fadedreality556 (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep. I think that this passes WP:NEVENT. It has received significant coverage, both national and international. PhoenixCaelestis • Talk • Contributions 17:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: This was a !keep in 2020, then again in January 2025. I don't see what has changed in the two months since the last keep. No new sources have been found to show this is now no longer notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Nothing has changed since January 2025, when this was last voted on at AfD. I have nothing further to add, it looks fine, as it did then. Oaktree b (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and California. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. All coverage is routine news coverage. The previous AfD erroneously considered lack of casualties as the argument against notability, while the 2020 AfD failed to differentiate between routine news coverage and sustained secondary coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect or selectively merge to List of Delta Air Lines accidents and incidents as a valid ATD. I concur with TBUA about the current coverage being fairly routine. In the five years since, and given the headlines, it genuinely surprises me that I cannot find any WP:LASTING or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Maybe that will change when the FAA report comes out, but the most recent article I found about this was in early Feburary 2020, barely a few weeks after the accident. [1] There's been no follow up coverage, either in news or journals or reports, that I can find - not even pieces about the lawsuit. The possibility of a lawsuit and the idea that coverage was bound to continue was a major point in the first AfD - many people guessed, quite correctly, that a lawsuit would materialize. However, it clearly didn't generate much in the way of attention, and, five years on, is unlikely to at this point. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 02:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  Found two very routine pieces on the lawsuit being filed and being dismissed,[2][3] both from the same regional newswire service that focusses on court reporting. Not really enough to meet NEVENT in my eyes. Also found a piece in Bloomberg law that's better, but still not enough.[4], and hence why I'm sticking with the ATD. Right now this could be summed up in a paragraph in the list, but spun back out should any lasting impacts be shown. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 05:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep arguably speedy keep, based upon the recent AfD and the coverage of the incident as seen in its references. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

  Previous AfD was esentially procedurally kept due to the nominator being blocked/socking, and included amazing keep arguments such as 'we should keep it because i think this non-notable individual living should be a criminal' (with absolutely no sources presented to show that they'd even been accused, charged, let alone convicted). It should be nuked, not referred back to. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 18:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

  It wasn't "essentially procedurally kept" other than the comment of the closer. All of the arguments presented at the second AfD were about the sources present in the article. I agree the 'illegal' activity comment is a bit off, but this paraphrasing of it is also off and doesn't take account the coverage the incident received, at the time and in subsequent NTSB investigations. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep nothing has changed from the last AfD apart from the fact we as a community apparently send aviation incident articles to AfD on vibes now. SportingFlyer T·C 11:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Nothing has changed since the previous AFD. S5A-0043🚎^{(Leave a message here)} 12:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

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.