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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 1382 (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 notable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit that a flight that never took off and with all occupants surviving is of borderline notability under WP:EVENT. I guess the arguments for are:

• A commercial airliner having to be evacuated because an engine caught fire is not normal
• The FAA stated that they will investigate the incident, in essence a promise that there will be a follow up at some point, giving the event some duration

And the arguments against being, well, it's just an accident, and everyone got put on a different flight. By airplane accident standards, no harm, no foul.

I could go either way on this one. LilyTurtle (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete – Not convinced the event is notable as stand-alone article, even with decent media coverage. Article creation seems to be hasty as WP:BREAKING news. Was originally going to suggest a redirect to a list article (e.g. List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft#2025, List of accidents and incidents involving airliners by airline (P–Z)#U, List of accidents and incidents involving airliners in the United States#Texas etc.), however all incidents on these list either involved fatalities, injuries, or were otherwise more critical in nature. Would not oppose a redirect if so desired by consensus. Bgv. (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Concur with "hasty". I saw the page redlinked under George Bush Intercontinental Airport and tried to fill it in from there. To be honest, looking at List of accidents and incidents involving airliners in the United States, it seems that there are incidents that don't involve "fatalities, injuries, or were otherwise more critical in nature" (e.g. runway overruns with no injuries or fatalities, debatable on criticality) in that list that are simply redirects to the airport's accidents and incidents section. Given further assessment, a redirect to "George Bush Intercontinental Airport#Accidents and incidents" seems to be appropriate. The FAA has listed the event as an aircraft accident/incident, so it could go on the lists mentioned. LilyTurtle (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Since there was no hull loss or death, I'm not sure this is even notable. Was there anything unique about this incident? Most news outlets are calling this an engine issue. Limmidy (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not notable, routine accident. E_F⁵ 01:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to a page with other airline incidents. Natg 19 (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable routine accident seeing some extra breaking coverage due to recent events as the media tends to do.Esolo5002 (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Accident is under investigation, too soon to nominate for deletion. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 11:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Every accident and incident is investigated, but I'm confused why you think that's a basis to keep. I don't think the results of the investigation will result in keeping the article when fires with no injuries are not terribly uncommon and we do not usually maintain articles on them. Reywas92^Talk 15:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Keep It's still under investigation but I don't think that it is such a major incident. And at the time there isn't much info about it. Thatairplaneguy (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fairly common occurrence. See Esolo5002's comment and FAA's Statements on Aviation Accidents and Incidents show that FAA investigation doesn't make this any more notable than other incidents. See Delta 2668, Delta 112, and United 2136 on the linked page for similar engine fires/issues that do not have their own pages and occurred in the past 6 months. Jrd64fan (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pretty obvious NOTNEWS violation (and the only reason this has been getting as much attention as it has is because of recent, much more notable incidents). Elli (talk | contribs) 18:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Week Delete This has happened to multiple United flights before and none of those have gained as much traction as this one. but it is still a developing story so maybe waiting a bit for more information might be a good idea Sellosealsaviation (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this non-event, a relatively run-of-the-mill incident for which there is no reason to expect WP:SIGCOV beyond the initial news cycle, nor WP:LASTING effects. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2025 (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.