Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Express Flight 3411: Difference between revisions

United Airlines Flight 3411 (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)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

No. Just... no. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING (and WP:NNEWS in general). This is an incident that has made headlines thanks to a few folks with cell phones and will probably be nonexistent in two months (though my money is a month). Regardless of my personal thoughts on its longevity, it is still TOOSOON to determine if it will have an impact and should be deleted until such time PERSISTENCE has been demonstrated. Primefac (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep just...keep. Keep or merge. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because...? Primefac (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

front page of NYT and CNN right now, so just keep....just keep or merge cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it makes the front page doesn't mean we must have it. Take a gander at some of those policies I linked. Primefac (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, I'm just expressing an opinion as a guy who's been an editor for a while. It is obvious that you disagree with me. Leave it at that. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Primefac (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - this is for U.S. airlines what the Rodney King tape was for the police. Of course it's notable. Blythwood (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know this how? Primefac (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, 'notable' is not the same as 'important'. DS (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ^{(just kidding)} Keep, of course, since I wrote it. It seems to be of greater significance and is likely to have wider impact than, say, the United_Breaks_Guitars incident. I didn't place it in the main UA page in keeping with convention to have incidents on separate pages. See also WP:RAPID. inks^talk 02:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with you sandboxing this for a few weeks to see if it really does turn into more than a flash-in-the pan headline grabber. Primefac (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is more able to develop if people can collaborate outside a single users' sandbox. Why not just re-nominate on AfD after a few weeks? inks^talk 03:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge. The fact that United (or Republic Airline) broke Code of Federal Regulations (namely, 14 CFR 250.2a) by intentionally bumping fare-paying passengers on non-overbooked flights in exchange for non-revenue crew members makes this a potential court case. C-GAUN (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I keep an eye on a lot of current events articles, some definitely are notable enough for inclusion here, this definitely is not. This is a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS as there is no chance for sustainable notability. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but this is a notable event not only in the aviation industry but to the general public as well. United violated Federal regulations by removing a fare-paying passenger from a non-overbooked flight and it may well set a legal precedence, not to mention the CDA officers involved in the incident are now suspended under the suspicion of using excessive force. C-GAUN (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really ought to set your crystal ball down. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy, this is not exactly the article itself isn't it? No one is predicting anything here. The officer who dragged him is already on administrative leave as of this afternoon. If I were "predicting" things then I would bring up the fact that the guy is Asian and singling him out is a form of discrimination. C-GAUN (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That entire comment contained exactly zero references to policy. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to tell ya. In fact, the whole nomination, IMHO, is unnecessary at this point per WP:RAPID. I also find that the issue has been covered by so many sources that it has become "very likely to be notable" under WP:EVENTCRIT. FYI, Chinese media are covering the issue now and the netizens are calling to boycott United. C-GAUN (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The event is barely two days old and you are basing your rationale on rumors and social media reactions. You are what people refer to as a "prisoner of the moment".--WaltCip (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First off , try to be a bit more WP:CIVIL. Official state media such as the People's Daily or the Global Times have been covering the event since this early morning, and there is an article on the new York Times about it. OTOH, I noticed that you have been warned about this before. Guess old habits die hard. C-GAUN (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now, it may become a significant part of United Airline's history. Sleep pilot (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. Historical or newsworthy events that take place only once (such as the assassination of Abraham Lincoln or the Columbine High School massacre) have to have a significant cultural, international, economic, societal, or governmental impact or be widely regarded as the cause of a notable or historical event. This article clearly doesn't come close to this requirement, and hence I believe it does not need an article on Wikipedia. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. (edit conflict) I'm not completely certain what I think about this article and this AFD (this incident is newsworthy but is it notable?) but, if this standalone article is deleted then the next question will become if there is editorial consensus either for or against including any of the content at the main United Airlines article (with the cycle of adding/reverting going on over there at the moment) but I suppose that is a matter to be taken up at that article's talkpage. Shearonink (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge Wikipedia allows the criticism of companies for notable incidents to appear on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing Alexf505 (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Alexf505: The issue is you need to prove that it's actually notable. So far, no one has here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We're not the news--what is a front page article for a news organization doesn't need to be a standalone article here. So far this hasn't done anything but generate (massive) headlines on social media and in a few news programs, but that this has lasting relevance can't be proven yet. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with DrMies. Wikipedia is a reference website. Not a news website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knox490 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Keep. I have a slight preference towards merging it under a Controversy section on the United Airlines article. Other airline articles have controversy subbsections, e.g. Qantas. But I can also see this incident and its consequences getting big enough to merit its own article. Am definitely against deletion. Oska (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following two comments are copied from Talk:United Airlines Flight 3411 where I believe they were misplaced Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this article -- it is likely to have an impact on future of airline booking policies, especially don't delete too soon as I am sure United is sending people to this page to try to get it deleted. j.williams@okeh.net (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The incident is receiving "significant coverage" by multiple sources and has generated widespread awareness. This meets the general notability standards of wikipedia. Wiki1882 (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Keep. Can be merged under Controversy section on the United Airlines article or can be a standalone article. But it shouldn't be deleted.Mingus79 (talk) 05:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. IF removed, what instead? Ignore the incident entirely? A brief mention in the Controversies section? Even in 5 years time, it might still be hard to evaluate the significance of the incident; it may be eventually a turning point for UA, or a turning point may come later after more such incidents TGcoa (talk) 07:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This incident has gotten big enough internationally to the point of becoming of worldwide scrutiny. Furthermore, if the incident of the San Bernardino North Park Elementary School shooting is able to have a its own page why can't this incident as well? It's quite a controversial move that United Airlines made which has stimulated national discussion regarding the practices of overbooking and the use of force for civil matters. >>Atsuke (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject is notable and internationally so. An article about the incident in China alone has more than 100 million views. It is also the second massive PR blunder at United in just a few weeks. Adraeus (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.In line with the emphasis that Wikipedia has I feel that there is a duty of care with regards to maintaining this information for future UNITED passengers and making sure that this and events liked it are catalogued in a fair and open way.194.66.32.17 (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The story is big enough to deserve an article. It seems to have too much content to merely merge with the main UA article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, re notnews, but rewrite and transwiki to wikinews, then add a link from main UA article to that article.--KTo288 (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative keep, otherwise merge to either UA or overbooking article. This article in its current form is poorly written, enough to trigger this AfD. But I see some parallels to this particular AfD about a tasing incident, and apply an old argument that "WP:NOT#NEWS expressly states that "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial"". Also considering WP:EVENT as a more up-to-date criteria: The level of coverage is substantial, the list of secondary sources that easily passes WP:V should prima facie suffice: This has turned into an investigation from DOT [1], suspension (and possibly charges) [2], a looming lawsuit [3], and an issue about race and response from a foreign country's population [4] [5] and all things considered prima farcie passes WP:GNG. Going by the airline incident criteria, this incident has a reasonable chance of "(resulting) in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry". Also see America West Airlines Flight 556 and nut rage incident where airline incidents in very unusual circumstances makes them sufficiently notable; to be forcibly removed in such a violent manner where the passenger has not posed a threat to safety is "extremely unusual" here [6]. - Mailer Diablo 12:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mailer Diablo, thanks for laying out the case--though I am not convinced that this adds up to an independent article. If that were the case then millions of singular events can be split off from what otherwise would be main articles--think of Trump's tweets, for instance, every single one of which can be considered notable if we disregard NOTNEWS. John, I still think we're in "merge" territory here. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I gave the article a little work. Let's see if that helps. :) - Mailer Diablo 18:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - High Controversay. Otherwise, move to Wikinews .--1233^Talk 13:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1233 (talk • contribs) [reply]
• Delete per above or merge somewhere, doesn't pass WP:EVENT for a standalone article too. Brandmeister^talk 13:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - You have got to be fucking kidding me. How much more of a blatant violation of WP:NOTNEWS can you get? For God's sake.--WaltCip (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider WP:CIVIL please. Well-reasoned arguments have been made on this page without resorting to profanity. Would you consider striking out your comment and rephrasing? inks^talk 14:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is hard to be civil when the keep rationales are so preposterous. "Human rights abuse"? "Censorship"? For the love of God.--WaltCip (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure I follow - those comments by Zigzig20s and Dáibhí Ó Bruadair were made after your "You have got to be fucking kidding me" post, so can't possibly have been a provocation? inks^talk 14:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• This has a paragraph in its proper context at Overselling#Airlines. Truth be told, even that is probably disproportionate. Delete. —Cryptic 13:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Per NOTNEWS. One of the more spectacular cases of WP:RECENTISM I have seen in a while. Long term significance is likely to be nil. Clearly fails the Ten Year Test. This is tabloid silliness that has no place in an encyclopedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete This is exactly what NOT#NEWS and NEVENT are advising not to do, rush to create an article just because there's a burst of news. If this is still in the news in any serious manner next week, then maybe there's something, but that's why NEVENT warns not to rush to create articles just on a burst of news but wait until significance in the long-term has been identified. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mailer Diablo. --John (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC) On reflection, Merge is a better outcome for now, with no prejudice against recreating in a couple of weeks if warranted. --John (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - turning into a major controversy, United shares plummeting. Mjroots (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at this point. The primary objection I have to most of the keep arguments here is that they either focus too much on ephemeral news coverage or rely on some future notability. We're not here to include an article based on its future notability, but on its present notability. Maybe this will be demonstrably notable at some point. But it's then that we should have an article, not now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As previously stated several times above, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Sario528 (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While I stand by my Delete (for now), I think we should wait about a week, to see how it unfolds. Sario528 (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to United Airlines#Controversy. WP:NOTNEWS, although a small section in United Airlines is good. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm very aligned with you: Merge to United Airlines#Controversy. Wykx (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This is now a major international story. Here in Ireland this afternoon everybody I meet is talking about it and it's the most read news story on The Irish Times website. It is a double injustice that Wikipedia would partake in censoring knowledge of this incident. Dáibhí Ó Bruadair (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now at least. Possible human rights abuse? Lots of RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge claims of humans right abuse and censorship are overblown, but this incident has caused enough of a stir that it should at least be mentioned in the United Airlines controversy section. Outright deletion would not be ideal. Lepricavark (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to United Airlines#Controversy. No need for an article. This is an encyclopedia not a news rag. Samf4u (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now according to WP:RAPID. Event is covered by diverse sources, the article is already created, and "it is recommended to delay the nomination for deletion for a few days". This is a Wikipedia rule. Kdn1982 15:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdn1982 (talk • contribs)
• Keep We work by 3rd party coverage. This has such coverage, internationally too. It's not about one passenger, it's about the lasting damage to United's reputation. United won't get to live this down in a hurry, there is value in us providing an objective record of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to United Airlines#Controversy. Prime example of WP:NOTNEWS. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I understand the NOTNEWS position, because this is not an accident with fatalities or major injuries, and had it not been taped it would probably not have become as big a story as it has become. However, the consequences and controversy the incident has caused is significant, so I agree with the analysis that Mailer diablo has put forward. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Don't rush to delete articles, I understand the WP:NOTNEWS concerns but this article has already been created, you're not going to get any sort of consensus in the present environment, and we should see how these events play out before doing anything. --haha169 (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Per NOTNEWS - EugεnS¡m¡on 15:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You can't say now that it fails WP:NOTNEWS. Others have mentioned not to rush to delete articles, and they're right. WP:CRYSTALBALL works both ways - see WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Give it a couple months and see what happens. Smartyllama (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this event was widely covered which goes beyond routine news coverage. Also notability is not temporary.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Widespread coverage, United stocks have already fallen, and this event might lead to significant policy changes.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: To simply say that this is "non news" that is simply being posted because of a few people that took videos with cell phones is simply wrong. It's already caused a major plummet in the company's stock, talk of calls for the CEO's resignation and skewering on late night comedy shows. As somebody not far above me said, it works both ways. This should stay for now. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The stock market one or two days after an event is hardly a good barometer for notability. Look for long-term trends rather than instant reactions. The social media does a really good job at over-amplifying the impact an event has within the first few relative minutes of coverage.--WaltCip (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, don't go pulling out one element of what I said and trying to use it. So maybe that by itself isn't a good indicator, but in combination with other things, I thing it has merit. And I'm certainly hardly the only one to mention it. In any case, yeah, widespread notability, as so many others have said. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect/merge to United Airlines]. Yes, it is IN THE NEWS, with lots of coverage, since "If it bleeds, it leads." But no, Wikipedia is not "News of The Week.." Fails WP:NOTNEWS. Tens of thousands of airline passengers a year do not get to fly due to airlines' overbooking. Others have had to get off the plane, and did so without drama, as did three passengers before the one man refused to comply with orders of the police to get off. There have been lots of other videos of people being dragged screaming off planes. It might deserve inclusion at the United Airlines article, since they apparently botched the process, when they could have seated the 4 employees before boarding the passengers, could have offered more money to get people to surrender their seats, or the police could have used more persuasion or simple strength to remove an elderly man rather than somehow smashing his face into something and dragging him down the aisle, then somehow letting him run back onto the plane several minutes later and removing him a second time. Then there is the tone-deaf post by an airline executive about having to "re-accomodate" passengers. Whatever slight coverage the incident merits would amount to a couple of sentences at United Airlines. It looks silly to have this article with its infobox listing "1 injured, 70 survivors" as if it were a plane crash. Edison (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Widespread coverage, such an event should be kept to help the firms learn to behave themselves better to their customers. DanGong (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's mission is not moral righteousness.--WaltCip (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or barring that, merge. The passenger-dragging incident is notable, since it sparked worldwide, probably-lasting outrage and many people are now reading about it. It does not violate WP:NOTNEWS since this doesn't read like a newspaper story or a short-term localized event. We are here to serve readers (of which I am one), not what a few editors think. However, I suggest we move it to another page. epicgenius (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - for now as meeting WP:GNG. In a month's time, when the dust has settled, then the position can be reviewed and a decision made whether this was simply a transient news event per WP:NOTNEWS or whether there is encyclopaedic value. Deleting now, only for it to be possibly recreated if it turns out there is long-term value, is sub-optimum. Just Chilling (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not need an article of its own; can be a footnote in the main United article. This is just another example of a 24-hour news cycle/social-media-fueled outrage pile-on that will be quickly forgotten as soon as the next news cycle/social-media outrage pops up. While it is in the news, its notability will fade in a matter of weeks, if not days. Darkest Tree Talk 18:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep. Whether this falls into the category of NOTNEWS or has a lasting significance remains to be determined, and will largely depend on the follow-up and the media coverage to said follow-up. In the event that the follow-up establishes notability, then obviously there's no benefit to deleting. In the event that there is little or no follow-up and this was simply a 24 hour story that everyone forgets, to keep this discussion running will prejudice the likely future nomination in favour of keep, when in fact the correct decision might be to delete. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a hugely notable incident based on the coverage in sources. This is also one of the lowest points in United Airlines history, and possibly in US airline industry in general. My very best wishes (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Keep This is easily one of the worst PR disasters of any business in the last 5 to 10 years. Even more. It could have lasting consequences for a lot of people and keeping this for posterity and reference ensure that Wikipedia remains not only a "collection of facts" but an engaged and ever-evolving tool in these times.--DGT15 (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The event has created a strong reaction from politicians, tv personalities, and activists. This follows Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If the Balloon Boy Hoax can get its own Wikipedia page, so can this. Alexf505 (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this. This will go down in the history as an example of poor management of a crisis situation. Many future students of PR will benefit from this entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.56 (talk • contribs)
• Keep. This isn't just a news trend that will fade. This is one of the lowest points in United Airlines history. If it must be deleted, all the important information should be transported to the United Airlines page under controversies. Gotta edit 'em all 18:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivaorn (talk • contribs)
• Keep A lot of the arguments above and poor and not based in policy but overall I have to lean towards keep. Public relations damage and financial implications do appear to be materialising which gives this some lasting significance. WP:NOTNEWS actually states As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. WP:NOTNEWS discourages "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" - not major controversies. AusLondonder (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep We still have United Breaks Guitars 168.215.131.150 (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can understand why this was nominated but the story has developed rapidly since that happened. The United CEO who was named "Communicator of the year" by PR Week just a few weeks ago is now being criticized for a PR disaster in using the "re-accomodating" euphemism and is now calling it a "horrific event" and promising changes in procedures. And then we have the outrage in China and accusations of racism. This goes way beyond routine news coverage so WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The news is growing with people calling for a boycott and stock dropping. Might be a delete a month from now after the news dies down. Dislike calls for speedy deletion while the topic is hot and growing. Can't be sure where the tip of the mountain is at. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge merge to the UA article. This incident is notable as an illustration of corporate bullying!!--Petebutt (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If United Breaks Guitars is an article, this should certainly be. Czolgolz (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERSTUFF. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 20:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now - seems significant and notable at the moment. AfD it in a month maybe and see if that gets supported? DBaK (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nomination, its WP:NOTNEWS, and the effects aren't WP:LASTING as of yet. Yes its awful what happened, however overbooking and kicking people off a flight isn't new in the airline industry. Least this could do is to be merged in with United Airlines#Controversies. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 20:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to History of United Airlines. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Nom was for lack of persistence, which may have been the case at that time. However, now, with United Airlines stock dropping $1.4 Billion ([7]), and with Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton pushing for a congressional hearing ([8]), this flight is going to affect all of us (and United in particular) for a very long time... -- IsaacSt (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge largely per above, I think this event is clearly notable and has attracted a lot of attention, I'm leaning twords a keep rather than a merge, but either one would by far be better than a delete. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, this may set some sort of legal precedent in the future. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 21:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now; it's too soon to decide whether it falls under WP:NOTNEWS or not. My hunch is that it will have lasting societal impact; e.g. the scandal was brought up at the White House press briefing; see video imbed in this article: "United Airlines CEO sorry for 'horrific' passenger removal", BBC News. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a major PR disaster and has already impacted the company visibly, and will likely result in a high profile lawsuit soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halsey L (talk • contribs) 22:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's quite notable. Ptok-Bentoniczny (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP FOREVER - This is absolutely an important article for United Airlines, law enforcement, USA, minority, Asian and Chinese communities, viral videos, etc. If this article is deleted, why don't we also delete all the other articles? The incidence has only been discussed by millions online. Regardless of future impact, if it is not important, notable, and persistent enough for it to be recorded for the sake of history alone, what is? Do we have to wait till billions of people are discussing it? Look at the sheer length of this discussion alone: so many people care enough about it! [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|User talk:]]) 22:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.29.178.9 (talk)
• Strong Keep This is a pretty major incident in terms of PR, and has the potential to impact the company's reputation, stock prices, and ticket prices for a considerable amount of time after the fact, all of which, if it happens, can then be catalogued on the article. (Iuio (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete United Airlines is by far the worst airline I have ever flown with in any terms, but this incident simply does not suffice to be documented in a separate article. Merging this to the controversies section is a good solution.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - The backlash and response was notable enough to warrant this article 10x over. Aleccat 22:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the time being, enough time hasn't passed to determine whether this will or won't be notable, but the public outcry and activity across social media platforms has currently dwarfed most PR nightmares of this nature. --Aabicus (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This controversy has been escalated into national and international news and has the potential to greatly impact how airlines operate, regulatory and/or legislatively, going forward. Neovu79 (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge I feel that what is already included in the United Airlines is plenty of information to support the topic at hand. Just because this recived a lot of media attention dosn't mean an article is needed. An event like this reciving this much contervocy is normal for todays socity. --KDTW Flyer (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite per NOTNEWS and DINC (or merge, whichever action seems more appropriate). While it's definitely TOOSOON right now, the vast number of reliable sources found clearly indicates that this event has already had a major enough impact to warrant notability. However, it still needs to be rewritten to comply with GNG. ToThAc (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. The incident is clearly notable, however, I feel as if there is a disconnect between the article structure and the actual subject. The name and structure of the article uses the template for aircraft incidents. However, this was not an aircraft incident, it was an airline incident. The flight number of the aircraft is irrelevant. The article should be renamed to something along the lines of 2016 United Airlines incident. The general content reminds me of something like The Bus Uncle. Note that the article is largely about the incident itself, and not about the vehicle in which the incident occurred. --NoGhost (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete: - under WP:NOTNEWS. Sufficiently covered under United Airlines. Also article is misnamed (although that's not grounds for deletion). -Drdisque (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as Wikipedia is indeed a news source. --24.112.201.254 (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Article cites 28 sources. The same argument I already outlined for North Park Elementary School shooting applies here as well. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I believe this is a significant event in the history of United Airlines, and the effects have already been outlined as notable. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]