Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents

Criteria

The article reads, for example:

Accidents and incidents. Accidents or incidents should only be included in airport articles if:

• The accident caused human fatalities.
• The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport.
• The accident or incident invoked a change in procedures, regulations or process that had a wide effect on other airports or airlines or the aircraft industry

But, to me this is not so explicit, in that it does not say if all criteria need to be met or just one. Danrok (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• I wonder the same as Danrok. Please can someone clarify that at the Boeing 727 crash talk at my talk page? Antonio Hot Dog Martin (aqui) 08:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Same question as Danrok. Currently, in the Aircraft section there is an or after the first two points. Which means, for example a serious damage to the aircraft aka every remarkable dent would give the accident notabiliy? Whoa. --Ben Ben (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

For large civil aircraft the "or" is there to show that any one of these parameters would qualify. Serious damage to the aircraft does not include dents, but would include hull loss or the need for depot level type repairs. - Ahunt (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

This still isn't clarified. Elsewhere I've seen a convention that unordered list items have an implied logical disjunction ("or") relationship, whereas ordered (enumerated) list items have an implied logical conjunction ("and") relationship. Could someone please decide, and make the instructions specific? The reader still cannot determine whether just one of the listed conditions is sufficient for notability. --Teratornis (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The "or"s are specifically in there for both large of small aircraft. What is not clear there? - Ahunt (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

CGI-type images

Made by a Wikipedian

Made by a Wikipedian

A number of accident articles use CGI type images used to give an impression of the aircraft/crash, the one at Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771 I notice is now at a 45 degree angle, it was different before. I believe that the use of such images is really original research and could give a misleading interpretation of what actually happened. Should we remove such made-up images in air accident articles? MilborneOne (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It's one thing to draw a map to illustrate an aspect of an article - since these can be compared to published maps - it's another to create an image purporting to accurately portray a crash. Unless it was produced by a Reliable Source. Changing a photo to make it more dramatic doesn't sound like taking a NPOV either. Sticking with stock photos of similar airframes is safer. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, these are WP:OR unless they come from a reliable source. - Ahunt (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I have copied these comments to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force to gain a bit more exposure. MilborneOne (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR says "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed.[1]" If you don't consider accident reports and photographs to be reliable published sources, you don't understand the rules about WP:RS. 17:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Better tell the people who voted to delete the picture of the Chengdu J-20 on the grounds that any Wikipedian could make a drawing of the aircraft... But yes, these could well be misleading and should be deleted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

No more misleading than any other illustration, and there are plenty of others here on Wikipedia. Anyone seen these before, they both pre-date my images.

Read the sources from Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771, the NTSB report says "WITNESSES ON THE GND SAID THE AIRPLANE WAS INTACT AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF FIRE BEFORE THE AIRPLANE STRUCK THE GND IN A STEEP NOSE-DOWN ATTITUDE." Combined with what the plane actually looked like it's pretty easy to see this is not just some unresearched postulation:

In short, like the folks who made those other images, I've made free versions of the kind of thing one sees in school books to the same standards. WP:IUP is the rule which applies to images, and using the same sources cited in the article isn't WP:OR. To make the PSA 1771 image OR, I'd have to have added smoke or shown it hitting at a shallow angle. Anynobody(?) 01:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be getting duplicated - I have responded at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#CGI-type_images. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

1988 Aeroflot Tu-134 accident

I've nominated the article for deletion, as failing each of the three criteria included in WP:AIRCRASH. You're invited to comment on the matter. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC) N Deleted

Relevance to Airport

There is a growing trend to associate incidents with an airport where the aircraft involved was only destined for said airport. No other connection with the crash would warrant its association. I suggest adding a qualifier under "Airports" which stated something to the effect of * Some aspect of the accident occurred near or on the grounds of the airport. 70.36.212.48 (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. It has been discussed before (for example, see Crashes and airports (Nov 2012), Accidents/Incidents (Feb 2012)). I think there were other discussions as well. The general consensus is that we don't add accidents or incidents to airport pages unless the accident actually occurred on or near the airport. It's pretty obvious that aircraft involved in accidents thousands of miles away from an airport aren't notable - even if that airport was the point of origin or destination for the flight. It never got added to the project guide on the grounds that it was common sense, but if this issue keeps coming up maybe we do need to add a note to clarify this. I would support that. Let's see what other editors think. SempreVolando (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Though per WP:AIRCRASH, that contradicts it. It is notable if it involves fatalities, a hull-loss, or a change in procedure. That's my $0.02. Thanks. WorldTraveller101^{(Trouble?/My Work)} 01:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Clearly an accident on the other side of the world is not notable to the airport however notable in itself, took the liberty to change the wording of aircrash per previous discussions to Accidents or incidents at the airport should only be included in airport articles if: main change is "at the airport" which to clarify is also meant to include on final approach or departure but not tens of miles away. MilborneOne (talk) 09:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the others. Why would the incident be included if it didn't happen at that location? If someone was killed in a car crash on the way to the airport, you wouldn't include that, so why include flights? --JetBlast (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Some, like the United Airlines Flight 93 are still notable, but maybe not some of the '70's and '80's that happened over the Pacific. OK? WorldTraveller101^{(Trouble?/My Work)} 15:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I dont understand as far as I can see UAL93 is not notable as far as airports are concerned as it didnt crash anywhere near one. MilborneOne (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the clarification on this issue. A testament to the ability of Wikipedia to legitimately consider other points of view and arrive at a consensus. Cheers! 50.0.103.34 (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Asiana Flight 214 / Criticism of NTSB by ALPA

Please come to Talk:Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214#Criticism_of_NTSB_by_ALPA to discuss encyclopedic value of criticism from ALPA based on questions designed to raise doubts about the real cause of the crash or to divert blame from the pilots. Does ALPA's criticism help the reader to understand better the crash or even the investigation? 75.208.105.97 (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Question/possible proposal to add new criterion

I'm here from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwest Airlines Flight 345, and I was wondering about a possible criterion that could apply. There's debate about whether the plane crash I linked to passes WP:AIRCRASH; however, the incident is an extremely unusual one (what passenger jet lands on the front landing gear?!). WP:CRIME stipulates that notability arises from the intent or carrying out of a crime is unusual - is this implied in WP:AIRCRASH, and if not, should it be added? Thanks, Ansh666 01:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Rather than make WP:AIRCRASH more complex than it already is, what we have done in the past is discuss unusual incidents and develop a consensus to keep them as an exception. - Ahunt (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure it is a crime or unusual to make an ar5e of the landing and land heavy on the nosewheel just bad airmanship. That said I dont think it needs any changes to guidelines as it is not that unusual or notable to make a special case. MilborneOne (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually if it is this incident that you refer to then I agree that it is non-notable and shouldn't be the subject of an article. It is a just a minor pilot-error accident. It is equivalent to a ferry hitting a dock in shipping terms or a supermarket parking lot fenderbender in car terms.- Ahunt (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, just wondering. To be honest, that would probably lead to a lot more confusion with different interpretations and such. Also, User:Ahunt, is it fine if I quote you in that discussion above? Ansh666 17:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually I would rather have my own input into the AfD, if that is okay? Let me have a read though where it is at now. - Ahunt (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That's even better. Thanks, Ansh666 19:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The future for WP:AIRCRASH

I would like to start a debate here as to whether we should keep WP:AIRCRASH or scrap it.

Recently a number of new articles have been created that don't meet WP:AIRCRASH or WP:NOTNEWSPAPER for that matter, in that they are military crashes with no notable people on board and no lasting repercussions (no ADs, changes in procedures or aircraft mods, etc), for example:

• 1971 RAF Hercules crash
• February 1982 Korean Air Force C-123 accident

But when these sorts of articles are sent to AfD, arguing for deletion on the basis of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:AIRCRASH they are voted "keep", most people arguing essentially that because it made the media and people died it meets WP:GNG and should be kept.

Two examples of articles that clearly fail WP:NOTNEWSPAPER (which is a WP policy and therefore mandatory) and WP:AIRCRASH (which is an essay and therefore not mandatory) but were voted "keep" at AfD anyway are:

• 2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash
• 2013 Rediske Air Otter crash AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Soldotna Airport Turbine Otter crash

The AfD arguments in both those cases are quite typical of recent results and bear a careful read as part of this discussion. As can be seen in those two examples and the recent creation of many new articles, the general consensus on Wikipedia now seems to be that any aircraft crash where someone dies is notable enough for an article. The only objection I have to this is that it is highly discriminatory against aviation and sounds too much like pure media-style sensationalism, meaning that airplane crashes are newsworthy, but deaths in other transportation modes are not. I would say that if we are going to go this route then it can't be just aviation accidents that we have articles on, but any accident in any transportation mode where there are fatalities (ship, rail, road) etc.

My proposal, based on community consensus, then would be:

• All transportation accidents that involve any fatalities should have an article
• Scrap both WP:AIRCRASH or WP:NOTNEWSPAPER since they are obviously already being widely ignored anyway

This would mean greatly increasing the number of articles on Wikipedia, but as has been pointed out, we have the server space to accommodate more articles. My guess that the number of transportation-related fatal accidents world wide is probably close a million per year, but as can be seen in the AfD debates, there does seem to be a strong feeling that these should all have articles. There have probably been 10,000 fatal accidents involving Cessna 172s alone that we will need to catch up on, plus, of course, add links to them all in the relevant aircraft type articles.

I will add a note at WikiProjects Aviation and Aircraft about this discussion to get the fullest input as possible. I do realize that to scrap the policy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER this will need to be taken to a higher level, but as can be seen in the AfD debates it has already been de facto scrapped anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds to me that Aircrash is still a valuable essay that takes into account existing Wikipedia policy, but it is the application of the AfD that is failing. If minor crashes are created in the wake of news coverage and survive the initial Afd, might they be eliminated at an AfD say a year or so down the line when NotNews can be shown. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you probably hit the crux of the issue there - at AfD editors are ignoring Wikipedia policies like WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and our attempts to add some detail to those polices, like WP:AIRCRASH. I am proposing scrapping the policies based on the fact that people obviously disagree with them, but you seem to indicate they should be retained and just taken back to AfD later. I would be concerned that the same results would be obtained. It seems clear that either the policies or the AfD closings need changing. We can't do what we have been doing, which is have the policies and then ignore them. - Ahunt (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You have to remember we changed to what is now wp:aircrash to ignore stand-alone articles and only deal with inclusion in exisiting article because of some of the issues we had in the past. It was written so WP:AIRCRASH should NOT be used in AfDs about stand-alone articles and these just had to pass the more global guidelines like WP:GNG. That said I cant see any reason why we should change from that stance and leave WP:AIRCRASH as is as a guide for in-article inclusion. MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite true, WP:AIRCRASH has been widely denounced at AfD as "just an essay" anyway and arguments based on it at AfD don't stand up well. We could sharpen up the wording in WP:AIRCRASH to make that more clear. But what about the widespread ignoring of the WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy as in the four examples above, though? It strikes me that if the only criteria to create a stand-alone aircraft accident article is that it has media coverage (and they all do, in North America every aircraft accident, no matter how minor, makes the news) then that that means all accidents could have stand alone articles and these will all get linked at least in the aircraft type articles, or can we reject the links to existing articles based on WP:AIRCRASH? If not then WP:AIRCRASH serves no purpose as all accidents would be included in type articles regardless. - Ahunt (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

AIRCRASH is often used as an argument to keep an article. Namely if the incident aircraft is a writeoff. While AIRCRASH says writeoffs are notable enough for mention in airport, airline, aircraft articles, it still must meet GNG for it to have a stand alone article.

You have to remember something to when it comes to AFDs. If the accident just happened, any AFD on a fatal aviation accident is going to see a good deal of recentism. The 2014 Norfolk Helicopter crash AFD is a perfect example. We've had 1960's military aviation incidents with 10 times the casualties and the articles went down as unanimous deletes with only 1/4 or 1/5 of the editors Norfolk has attracted. We just had a Quebec hijacking from the 1970's and only two people took part. Why weren't any of the Norfolk editors not interested in the Quebec one? They were both listed at most of the same deletion sorting pages(Aviation, Events, Transportation). Its recentism that's why. AFDs on a recent occurrence are always going to be different....William 14:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

If the problem is that WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is being ignored at AFDs, then we should go to that page and open discussions on it there, and see what happens there. ALso, we might go to GNG and raise the issue there too. WJE makes good points about recentism, and going back later to review the articles. I concur that AIRCRASH is no longer to be used for AFDs. - BilCat (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

AIRCRASH ought to be a statement of how WP:Aviation interprets a) Wikipedia polices and b) project consensus as to what i) makes an incident notable enough for independent article ii) makes an incident relevant for inclusion in an article. Its use remains in showing to others how WP:Aviation members generally work. Eg the sort of breadth of source and relevant facts for the incident if you are writing the article, or how to make a challenge against its notability in the case of Prod or Afd. At an AfD it would probably be better to quote wikipolicies directly. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

In regards to the second two examples listed in the OP, it's hard to delete articles on non-notable recent events as the discussion attracts lots of people who are following up on the topic after reading news reports and are unfamiliar with the relevant notability guidelines. Waiting until the event is out of the news and not-recent often produces a different result. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The key is not so much WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as WP:PERSISTENCE. If WP:GNG is met, then WP:AIRCRASH is irrelevant - the problem being that even WP:PERSISTENCE gets ignored by so many screaming "it meets GNG!" (When in fact probably 90% of the "widespread coverage" they point at is the same article dissiminated by a news agency.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The main difference is that WP:PERSISTENCE is a guideline, which can and does get safely ignored at AfD, while WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is a policy, which also seems to get widely ignored at AfD!

So far what I am seeing here is that we have a choice of changing (or continuing to ignore) Wikipedia policy and having articles on every fatal accident, even if they had no lasting effects at all or taking some action to ensure that when AfDs are closed that policy is taken into account. Right now most of the closures seem to be simple "vote counts" where editors advocating "keep" against policy are given equal weight by the closing admins with those advocating "delete" as per policy. It also sounds like WP:AIRCRASH just needs a bit of tweaking to make it clear that it just applies to non-stand alone articles, but otherwise still has some value.

I think this debate is useful and I want to let it run a full week at least and see if we can hear from some dissenting or contrary voices as well to get a wide range of inputs. In particular I have invited User:The Rambling Man to join this debate, as he has had some thoughts on this subject before, as can be read in the AfDs linked above. - Ahunt (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

IMO, part of the problem is that WP:AIRCRASH is based on the perspective of those "in" aviation (it is under WP:Aviation) - i.e. interested in things like an accident's causes and it's long-term effects on aviation. There are (based on the AFD discussions) other editors who are interested in the number of people killed, any celebrities, where the accident happened, records ("the worst air accident in ... for ... years") etc. As an engineer, I'm firmly in the first group (an accident on a ferry flight can tell us as much about air safety as a crash that kills hundreds), but we share these articles with other editors/readers for whom the non-engineering/aviation aspects are more important/interesting. WP:AIRCRASH (or an alternative essay) should contain advice to those taking an article to AFD - e.g. summarising counter-arguments to the keep !voters and be reporting on AFD (e.g. explaining why some articles survived AFD), not attempting to be an input to AFD. Also, do these articles do much harm ? - someone reading an article about a celebrity that says "... was killed in <aircrash>" may click on the link to the article about the crash and learn something about aviation. DexDor (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You bring up some good points there. One related note is that at some AfDs, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash for instance, the argument was made that location is important, in that case that the crash was notable because it happened in downtown London and that it might not have been notable if it happened in, say, northern Saskatchewan. As mostly aviation background editors we tend to focus on the aircraft, crew and sequence of events and generally think that an accident-is-an-accident and could have happened anywhere. In that specific case that helicopter could have hit a tower in a remote area or in a city, so what does it matter where it happened? Obviously from that AfD other editors from other backgrounds may see location or other similar factors as being more important. This is related to William's notes above on "recentism", where newer accidents get treated differently than old ones. - Ahunt (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, a quick run through for me. Let's take the article I recently created, 1971 RAF Hercules crash, as an example. Firstly, when "NOTNEWSPAPER" (etc), does that apply simply to standalone articles, or to mentions in other articles? The crash (along with hundreds of others) is listed in the List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities, a featured list which pretty much snow-survived deletion here. My first question I guess is, if it's notable enough to be mentioned in an article, if sufficient reliably sourced material is available, is it therefore notable enough for its own article? Secondly, the Hercules article relates to a crash with in excess of 50 deaths and is not like the many thousands of Cessna crashes mentioned in the intro to this section. I think that's comparing chalk with cheese. Thirdly, the Hercules crash has a rather good article in the Italian Wikipedia. Does the "NOTNEWSPAPER" argument only relate to English-language newspapers? This crash has been mentioned in published paper literature, does that come under "NOTNEWSPAPER"? (TL;dr, I know).

Of course, this is all only semi-related to AIRCRASH. The first flaw of the essay, as Ahunt has already noted, is that AIRCRASH has been too often used as justification for launching an AFD. A bad start, already acknowledged above, which should not be repeated. Stick to Wikipedia policies. Secondly the Aviation project has precedents like "List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities" and more generally List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft, which comes with its own set of inclusion criteria here (seemingly consensual, but then arbitrary). That list has some accidents with articles, and some without. Why shouldn't they all have articles if sufficient can be written about them, or should those without articles (or which fail AIRCRASH) be removed from the list? I know, by now, the intentions of most of you guys is all good, and while I've had plenty of run-ins with many of you, I would strongly urge you to determine a clear set of "guidelines" for inclusion, and make that your AIRCRASH. A nice guideline which can be flexed to suit. Happy to discuss any of these points further. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for coming and participating! You bring up some good questions there.

I think overall we have a building consensus here to do a bit of rewording so that it is clear that WP:AIRCRASH only applies to whether to include mention of crashes in aircraft types articles, airport articles, etc. In that respect it seems to serve a useful purpose in keeping out 10,000 mentions of non-notable crashes from the Cessna 172 article, 8,000 from the Piper PA-28 Cherokee article and so on. There is a great tendency whenever some light aircraft has an unremarkable crash that IP editors quickly add it to the Wikipedia article and being able to point to a consensus inclusion standard like WP:AIRCRASH is useful.

Bringing up 1971 RAF Hercules crash is a good example of a newly created military crash article on an older accident (43 years ago). I don't think anyone would argue that just because an accident is mentioned in a list article that that alone justifies having a stand-alone article on the subject. It still has to meet the policies like WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. This particular crash article is a probably a good example to debate here, because it is an old accident, the long term repercussions are now well known and also because you started the article and therefore are familiar with the subject. That article seems to have enough refs to easily establish notability, but I think the real issue is going back to the policy of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and to some extant the guideline WP:PERSISTENCE. As far as I can see in this accident a Herc crashed, people died and there were no long term repercussions after that, no design changes, no rule or regulations changes, no airworthiness directives or changes to training etc, at least nothing persistent mentioned in the article. Completely the opposite would be the crashes of the two Cessna 162 prototypes, which are described in that type article (no stand alone article, although they could have been). No one was even injured, but they resulted in the aircraft being redesigned, so it obviously meets WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:PERSISTENCE. I wondered if you could add your thoughts on how an article like the 1971 RAF Hercules crash meets those requirements as I think that one example really goes to the "pith and substance" of what we are debating here. - Ahunt (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. Firstly, so can I just clarify that the project's interpretation of NOTNEWSPAPER is that you can mention NEWSPAPER-ONLY events anywhere you like, e.g. in a list, the only thing you cannot do is write an article about it? That's really important. I looked at GNG, the quote is: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Does that mean "inclusion in a list" or "a list of its own". I'd find the latter hard to believe, so perhaps this needs clarification...

Secondly, regarding the notability of crashes, given that there have been only around 500 crashes with more than 50 fatalities, I can't see that arguing against the notability of a crash, even a military one, with 50+ casualties shouldn't be allowed to have an article. I totally understand the concept of "long term repercussions" as you've noted, but are you suggesting that all articles about aviation accidents meet that (unwritten) rule? I get persistence as well, but looking around and seeing the sources, both English and Italian (and like I said, the Italian Wikipedia has a large and decent article on this, doesn't that tell us something?), the memorials in Livorno, the visits of No. 24 Squadron to Pisa, etc, this has persisted. Of course, it's just one example, so perhaps not a good case for a generic approach. If AIRCRASH's sole aim is to tell people that there's no persistence, then it's no good at AFD because we'd never write an article about a recent crash for years. If AIRCRASH's aim is to remind people it's NOTNEWSPAPER, then NOTNEWSPAPER covers it. Looking again at NOTNEWSPAPER, I suppose we're only really dealing with clause 2, "News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events.". Unfortunately, that clause is laughed out of court immediately upon noting its recommendation to take articles to the pretty much defunct (and totally defective) Wikinews. But seriously, why would we not consider a crash involving 50+ deaths not notable? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are quite right, the key thing we have to comply with is the policy in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER that says, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." I just don't see anything persistent in an accident like the one we are discussing. Let me draw a parallel here on the basis that every human life has the same value and that we aren't going to discriminate on the basis of transportation modes. Here where I live we had an accident a few months back. A women was biking and was hit and killed by a cement truck that was turning right and didn't see her. The accident was widely reported in the news for a week, the mayor and some city councilors made statements and a Ghost bike memorial was erected on the spot and is still there today. This easily makes WP:GNG as there are dozens of sources available, but we don't have an article on this though, even though it was a fatal transportation accident, because these are commonplace (we have had dozens like this here in recent years) and there is no persistence beyond the memorial, in that there were no rule changes, etc. In many ways the two accidents are very similar. Now you could say "we only care about aircraft crashes not bicycle accidents" but as I noted that is treating aircraft discriminatingly from other transportation modes (cars, trains, ships, bicycles). You could also yes "well in the Herc crash 50 people died and this accident only one died", but that ties notability to the number of deaths, not the enduring effects. If we are going to do that then we would need a cut-off and say "a transportation related accident with 10 or more deaths gets an article and one with nine or fewer doesn't" or something like that. Do we want to ignore the requirement for "enduring notability" and just go with the number of deaths involved instead? Even that poses problems, here in my country we had over 3000 influenza deaths last year and we don't have an article on that event either, nor even a passing mention in 2012–13 flu season. I bring that up because I am not convinced that the number of deaths is significant in the absence of persistent ramifications. - Ahunt (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Cool. Missing from your response is a discussion over whether items that are considered NOTNEWSPAPER by you or AIRCRASH or whosoever, should be included in Wikipedia at all, albeit in a list of items. Why should they be mentioned at all if they're just NEWSPAPER? There are numerous articles, e.g. List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–2009) which, per the newspaper/persistence theme, contains references to dozens, if not hundreds of items which are simply not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. If we mention them, why can't we write an article about them providing sufficient notable reliable sources exist? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

That is a good point, isn't a list of non-notable accidents in itself therefore non-notable. I would think so! - Ahunt (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Not just a list, but even a mention of a non-notable accident, presumably if an article isn't appropriate, a mention isn't appropriate either. If that's the way we head, a lot of deletions ahead of us. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I would think that an event like an accident is either notable in every Wikipedia context or it isn't, so I wouldn't disagree with that at all!

I did want to bring up one more comparison just to make the point that I think we are treating aircraft accidents differently than other kinds of accidents. I do understand that many people would say that the Herc accident is notable just by the large numbers of deaths involved, so I wanted to compare the bike accident I described above with another accident I mentioned up higher here in this discussion, the 2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash. Both are transportation related accidents, both would meet WP:GNG as they both have lots of media coverage and therefore sources, both happened in major cities, both tied up traffic for 24 hours, one involved one death (cyclist) and the other involved two deaths (the helicopter pilot and one bystander), neither has any enduring effects noted. I would think unless we make the cut-off for an article "two or more deaths" that there really isn't much difference between these two accidents.

My point is this: I don't think anyone would argue that we should have articles on all transportation accidents that get media coverage and thus can meet GNG. Last summer we had a Cessna that departed the edge of the runway at a local small airport, with minor damage to a wheel pant. Amazingly this was covered by three media outlets, because it was "an airplane" and not a car and it was a slow news day. No one would think we should have a Wikipedia article on it (not at all notable, but could meet GNG). At the other end of the scale you have accidents like TWA Flight 800 were you have an airliner that exploded, 230 deaths and a huge number of rule changes as a result of the requirement to inert fuel tanks at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars (very notable). I don't think anyone would argue that we should omit that accident! What that says to me is that we need some kind of criteria to decide where to draw the line between those two accidents, what to have accident articles on, beyond that we have media coverage alone available. That was really what WP:AIRCRASH was trying to create, was that yardstick, mostly to avoid coverage of the millions of small and trivial accidents like the one I mentioned above. Any suggestions about how to draw that line better would be very welcome. - Ahunt (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I think perhaps that's the problem. AIRCRASH simply isn't helpful in this context. Nor is the clamour to delete articles while we wait for a persistence argument to turn up. I think, on reflection, that AIRCRASH should be removed entirely. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we have everyone's agreement here that WP:AIRCRASH should specifically not apply to stand-alone accident articles, that was the current intention and that we should make that more clear in the essay itself. After having proposed that we scrap it initially I am seeing that it has some value as guidence as to which accidents to mention in aircraft type articles or not.

So where would you draw the cut-off between an accident that should have an article and one that shouldn't? Here is a good example, an aviation incident that got national media coverage. Should we have an article on it? If not why not? It would meet GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• I would oppose any use of WP:AIRCRASH as notability guidance, because it would conflict with the GNG which is good and is accepted across wikipedia. Having two conflicting standards just encourages conflict at AfD, between those members of a project who follow that project's rules, and the wider community who follow wikipedia-wide rules. bobrayner (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

As I have already said due to these conflicts at deletion discussions we had previously changed AIRCRASH so that it should not be used at AfD for stand-alone articles, and as far as I am aware that is the current consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

As I noted above I think we need to tweak WP:AIRCRASH to make that a bit clearer, but there seems to be a good consensus so far to do that. - Ahunt (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

People shouldn't cite pages like WP:AIRCRASH as though they were notability guides, but it still happens. A recent example would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Norfolk helicopter crash. bobrayner (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

More generally, I'd want to emphasise there's often a gap between the actual wording of policies / guidelines / essays versus how people actually use them to support arguments on other pages. We need to be aware of that gap, and if misinterpretation is common, we need better wording. Since a common use of WP:AIRCRASH seems to be for supporting arguments that differ from actual policies and guidelines which have been approved community-wide, I think we should take an axe to it. bobrayner (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

As noted above I think we have a consensus so far to really add some clarifying words to WP:AIRCRASH to indicate that it should not be used on stand-alone aircraft accident articles or at AfD at all. It sort of says that now, but needs to be more clearly worded. - Ahunt (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

What about something along the lines of that in the WP:Milhist notability guideline which says "The consensus within the Military history WikiProject is that the following types of units and formations are likely, but not certain, to have such coverage [referring to GNG etc] and therefore likely, but not certain, to be suitable for inclusion:" ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

One of the main problems here is that some people are using pages as notability guidance even though they don't fit what our actual notability guideline says. Adding more words on a different page that are orthogonal to the GNG (and will certainly be used as such) is likely to aggravate that problem rather than solving it. bobrayner (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It's clear that AIRCRASH isn't working quite as intended despite all the thought, wisdom and effort that has gone into it over the years. Even if it was a guideline/policy it would get ignored as all the other WP policies are ignored. Look at this guy's user page for example, openly disagreeing with consensus policies, we're doomed!!

I had a thought this morning to hide AIRCRASH (redirect it, hide it if an admin can or delete and transfer the content to a user sandbox for possible re-creation). Run a trial (perhaps two months) and see what effect this has on new aircraft accident article AfDs (and existing ones). It appears that we have nothing to loose. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

"One of the main problems here is that some people are using pages as notability guidance even though they don't fit what our actual notability guideline says" - this completely misses the point that GNG is the General Notability Guideline. Other "notability guidance", er, guidelines don't have to necessarily conform to GNG. The sooner people stop treating GNG as if it was holy writ and any deviation from GNG as heresy to be purged, the sooner we can get on with fixing actual problems. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Air accident AfDs - isolationism and hastiness

As I see it, the problem with AfDs about air accidents isn't WP:AIRCRASH it's people misunderstanding AfDs about air accidents. These I think can be summed up

Something that has been only tangentially mentioned, and seemingly not really understood, above is that an air crash isn't necessarily just an air crash. The 2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash is the perfect example - as an air accident in the context of all air accidents globally it was pretty routine. In contrast it was a very significant event in terms of the history of a major world city, and in the context of air traffic management over cities. Plane crashes like the 2011 Lokomotiv Yaroslavl air disaster might be routine in the context of aviation, but human factors make it significant. People from this project need to stop seeing air crashes in isolation and recognise that non-aviation factors can play a big part in what makes something notable or otherwise. Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopaedia, most people are not aviation specialists or enthusiasts, they are not mechanics, engineers or designers. Most people are interested in people and places that they know either through their being famous or their being local to them. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

That is really why the focus on WP:GNG, WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:EVENT as these policies and guidelines apply to all articles, regardless of the point you are approaching it from, aviation, urban geography, ethnology or sociology, etc. The 2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash is the perfect example, as it is no more significant to the history of London than any other transportation accident in which two people died, a daily occurrence in that city. The problem, as I have noted, is that editors treat it very differently because it involved a helicopter instead of a car, which is simple aviation prejudice. The media does this all the time as I noted in incidents like this that get national press coverage. If this story had been about a bus incident it would have had a headline like "Bus Wheels Don't Fall Off, Narrowly Averting an Accident That Didn't Happen". Wikipedians seem fall into the same trap, "if it happened to an aircraft it must be important and should have an article on it", but if an article on the same event were written about a car or bus accident it would be deleted in seconds as trivial and not-notable.- Ahunt (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Aviation is different precisely because aircraft don't crash every day but buses and cars do. It might seem unfair to you, but at Wikipedia we work with verifiability not fairness. In the past 60 years there has been exactly one helicopter crash over London. There have been more road accidents in London in the 10 minutes I've been framing this response - can you not appreciate why that means people regard them as qualitatively different? Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

That is precisely the point though, it is not different. In my country (Canada) every year we have about 300 helicopter accidents very similar to this one. World wide they number in the thousands. The only reason anyone noted that one was that it happened within a few blocks of Fleet Street and all the media outlets sent a reporter and cameraman round there because it was close by. It was simple proximity and nothing more than media sensationalism. That is, too I think, William's point below, that these sort of accidents happen on a daily or weekly basis, almost all have press coverage, but we have articles on only a few of them and without much rational rhyme or reason as to why or why not. That was the original point of WP:AIRCRASH, to try to come up with some standard so that we can decide which ones are worth having articles about and which ones aren't. I don't think we can go the route of saying something like "Articles should only be written on fatal aircraft accidents that involve damage to the aircraft and at least ten fatalities, unless it happens in London in which case it is far more important and any accident of any type is therefore notable there". I know people who live in many other locations who would say that any aircraft accident in their home town is at least as important to them as what happens in London. This may have been the first fatal helicopter accident that happened in London, but the next one would be the first one that happened in Paris, Toronto or Churchill, Manitoba. - Ahunt (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Now, Paris and Toronto I can buy, especially if a helicopter crashes in the CBD, but smaller conurbations, not at all. It's like Thryduulf says, it's about the personal impact, not some arbitrary standard. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay that is an interesting observation! How small would a community have to be before the crash would not be notable? Under 1,000,000, under 100,000? - Ahunt (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not possible to say. It all depends on the circumstances of the accident - a plane crashing into a small village primary school in the middle of the day would probably be more notable than a plane crashing onto a suburban park in the middle of the night, even if neither caused any fatalities. Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, since the whole point of this discussion is to figure out which accidents are worth including and which ones aren't how do we use what you have said to determine that? - Ahunt (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It is simply not possible to determine categorically which air crashes are notable and which are not. What is possible is to make lists of factors that will usually make an incident more or less likely to be notable. I would divide these factors into several categories - off the top of my head these would be: location, aviation category, incident type, cause, direct outcome (what damage it caused, etc), longer-term effects (if any), people involved, equipment involved (aircraft type, etc) and era. I might have missed some out, and others may divide some differently, but you get the picture. For each incident you need to evaluate all these factors to determine whether and to what extent (list entry, sentence, paragraph, section, article, multiple articles, etc) an incident is notable. Real life is messy and defies neat categorisation though. There are some events that are notable almost entirely as aviation accidents, (e.g. BOAC Flight 781) but also incidents that involve aircraft but whose notability is almost entirely for other reasons (United Airlines Flight 93 and John Denver#Death come to mind, but they are imperfect examples). The best that can be done is a guideline indicating which factors generally make an incident notable (or non-notable) from an aviation perspective. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That is an interesting way of looking at it, essentially saying that any accident might or might not be notable enough for an article depending on a large list of factors that inevitably many individual editors will disagree upon. I think that means that we can't come up with any guidance beyond that it must have reliable sources and then it anyone disagrees that any one accident should have an article, it will have to go for AfD for a final decision. - Ahunt (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Essentially yes. In practice most factors will be clear in most cases, and there will be relatively few incidents that need discussing, and the list (which I'll start working on in a moment) will provide guidance, but absolutes are not possible. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Well that would probably cut down discussions and debates over individual articles a lot and make AfDs pretty much a waste of time. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, as it would leave more time for writing new articles and editing existing articles and less time spent at AfD, which I see as a good thing. My only concern is that the scope of coverage (which accidents get articles and which ones get forgotten) would be very much left up to whim. With only a dozen or so people really working on aircraft accidents, many if not most, that could be written up, will get missed. If we had hundreds of editors working on them the coverage would be more consistent. But as long as that doesn't worry you, I am fine with it. It isn't like Wikipedia will ever be "finished" anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The other major problem is rushing. The 2014 Norfolk helicopter crash is the perfect example here - the article probably shouldn't have been created yet, but given that it has there really should be no rush to delete it. There is a culture clash between those arguing that we shouldn't have an article until we know the subject is notable, and those arguing that given that we have an article we should keep it until we know it isn't. Given the absence of facts - you can't know whether something will have persistent coverage until months after the event at the earliest; you can't know whether the report has implications for other things until the report exists, which may be 1-2 years after the incident - the unverifiable speculation is on the part of those wanting to delete. Citing WP:AIRCRASH is not relevant unless you have facts to back up the points you are making. The best thing to do is just wait, it's not harming anything to wait for the dust to settle. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Since Norfolk, there have been 1[1], 2[2], 3[3], 4[4], aviation accidents involving United States military aircraft. Three of which were fatal. How many of the four have articles? Zero. Not to mention both Zambia and Pakistan's Air Forces having fatal crashes. That's just in the last two weeks. Military and cargo aircraft accidents are routine occurrences....William 14:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You appear to have missed my point. I'm talking about not rushing to delete articles that created about events that might be notable, you have cited 4 incidents without articles that nobody has claimed are notable. Of the four incidents, only [5] is comparable and anyway the existence of other non-notable events does not prove that any specific incident is not notable. My argument is that articles about such events shouldn't be created until notability is certain, but if they are created they shouldn't be deleted until non-notability is certain. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I also suggest that fatal crashes that have been overlooked may still deserve an article. Just because they don't exist yet, it doesn't mean they shouldn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

We don't seem to be getting much closer to a solution but the discussion is certainly worth having. GNG is often quoted in AfDs as it is a policy and must therefore override AIRCRASH which is an essay. If we did go through the process of making AIRCRASH a policy or guideline it would have to follow GNG very closely, the notability guideline for articles on people basically repeats GNG.

By having AIRCRASH are we complicating things by giving AfD nominators/keepers too many criteria to consider? I looked at GNG again just now, the main sentence is this: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

The definition of significant coverage is this: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

If we replaced the word 'topic' with 'air accident' it would become this: If an air accident has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

That seems clear enough, it would then come down to what is deemed 'significant coverage'. A one or two page AAIB/NTSB accident report would probably not be defined as significant coverage so the majority of general aviation articles (including fatals) would be excluded. Larger formal reports from these organisations probably would be classed as significant coverage, these accidents are likely to be covered in many other sources anyway. The BBC often gives one page reports on air accidents in the UK, usually in the regional sections of its website (with a paragraph sometimes featuring briefly on the front page), 'Light plane comes down in field' etc, I would exclude that as not significant coverage.

I have two books by David Gero on air accidents, one civil and the other military. I looked to see what inclusion criteria he used but he does not use any, just used his editorial judgement. One book has a sub-title of 'Significant losses since 1908' and the other 'The world's major civil airliner crashes since 1950'. 'Significant' and 'major' stand out.

Assuming that AIRCRASH was a policy using the revised GNG wording then an article's worth would be based solely on its coverage in sources and would not relate to hull losses etc. Could this be a way forward?!! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 05:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Some good thoughts there. The problem I have, as I noted above in the case of examples like this is that in North America just about all minor incidents get substantial coverage. If we go by plain GNG policy then we should have articles on all aircraft incidents and accidents. I actually don't mind if we go that route as it would be easy to quickly judge whether an article should kept or not (got media sources? keep!), but it would mean we would have about 10,000 new aircraft accident articles per year and the danger that many would be missed, just due to the sheer volume. I would also argue that we should treat other modes of transportation the same way, too. - Ahunt (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well that report is very short, shorter than similar ones I see on the BBC, so I would call it insignificant coverage. If the same accident was treated in the same way by multiple news sources I would still call it insignificant coverage (usually they are mirrors or near repetition of the first report). It is a different way of looking at things, I believe that I understand the GNG guideline better now after analysing it. The problem would be at AfD using this system is what is significant coverage.

If AIRCRASH was revised with the alternative GNG wording and an expanded definition of what constitutes 'significant' coverage (agreed by aviation editors) then it should easily pass the guideline or even policy process quite easily (in theory!!). AfD debates would be less subjective, it either is or is not a worthy article (with the odd WP:IAR exceptions possibly). There are a few specific case notability guidelines in this category which we could look at for ideas. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, the only remaining debate then would be whether media articles like that would constitute "significant coverage". After all it was the main subject of the coverage on a national news service, even though it is obviously a complete non-incident.

I have to admit from a personal point of view I really don't care what standard for accidents we settle on, as long as we settle on something clear, easy to understand and that will stand up at debates like AfD. Personally I want to be able to look at an article, compare it to the criteria and be able to see quickly if we should keep it or not. I don't really personally care if we have millions of articles on incidents like that one I cited, only a few hundred on the most notable air crashes, or anything in between, as long as we have a clear way of telling which we should have.

Just to sum up where I think we are in this debate, I think we have consensus to clarify WP:AIRCRASH so that it clearly only applies as a criteria of whether to mention an accident in an aircraft type article, airport article, etc. I think we are also pretty much at a consensus that stand-alone accident articles should be decided by WP:GNG (or a specialized form of it), in other words if an accident gets significant media coverage that that is enough for an article. Not sure how we address the requirements for ongoing consequences outlined in WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:EVENT though. Those seem to have been widely ignored in the past, I guess we could just ask to have them rescinded or continue to ignore them. - Ahunt (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Of the three shortcuts only WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is a policy, the other two are the same guideline effectively. So what we should be looking at is a combination of GNG and NOTNEWSPAPER tailored for air accidents. Completely agree with having a virtually bulletproof and clear policy (or guideline if we can't achieve that level of authority), it's why I rarely participate in AfDs, we have an essay for guidance (has no authority) and GNG etc which are policies which are either not read at all, misinterpreted or ignored (or all three!!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Significant coverage

I'd like to start a mini-thread about what the editors here consider "significant coverage". I'm a regular reader of Flight International which covers most "significant" air crashes. I also read the BBC website which will cover "above average" air crashes. Given GNG becoming the thing to point at, as opposed to AIRCRASH, would I expect to see a flurry of AFDs from the Aviation project if I created articles about crashes which were covered in Flight International and the BBC? A comment such as "After all it was the main subject of the coverage on a national news service, even though it is obviously a complete non-incident." makes me worry that the Aviation project will always be at odds with what is considered significant coverage. So, to the forum. What would satisfy your "significant coverage" urges? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Really anything outside the local area that is just not a repeat of the reuters or other press agency release and carries on past the point of being just a daily news filler. Flight do cover accidents that would be of interest to the aviation reader and not neccesarily the general public so I am not sure that should be considered part of significant coverage on its own. MilborneOne (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you have hit a critical issue here! I would say that any third party, independent source that meets WP:RS would be fine. The main issue to to avoid self published sources, like blogs, etc. So, personally I wouldn't have a problem with Flight International or the BBC. Most mainstream media outlets, like CBC (as noted above) BBC, CTV, CNN, etc, cover in great detail some very minor accidents, like that one I linked to that have no damage and no injuries. I think if we are going to go the "GNG-only" route then we are going to have to accept that we will not have all accidents, that some very minor ones that catch some editor's eye (most likely because it happened near where they live) will get written up and that some more major ones will get missed. I also think that it will be pointless taking any of them to AfD as, as long as they have sources they will meet GNG and will be "keeps". Personally, if we do go the GNG-only route (which seems to to be the consensus here so far), I would never send another aircraft accident article to AfD and would probably not !vote on any either, as I have have lots of more useful work to do here, than waste time on that. One final note, as I mentioned above if we are going to go this route I think we have to take the same approach and "keep" all other transportation accidents that have GNG sources: car accidents, rail and bicycle accidents as well. - Ahunt (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I take your point regarding car/rail/bicycle accidents. It's a sad fact of modern life that we generally consider air crashes to be significant because air travel is so safe. Getting into a car or riding a bike is tantamount to suicide. However, I'm not sure how this discussion would read across to the projects that cover car/cycle/rail accidents, who perhaps have "CARCRASH", "CYCLECRASH" and "RAILCRASH" to debate. Are we trying to align the Aviation project or Wikipedia? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

All I know is that we need to reduce the amount of time and effort spent on air accident AfDs, mostly dealing with articles that clearly should never have been created and a rightful PROD has failed. The worry about accident articles being created on the strength of one news agency's single page report could be reduced by applying another part of the GNG 'Significant coverage' definition. Repeating the wording again for clarity: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. 'And in detail' so a short report is no good, we have to further define what 'in detail' is relating to air accidents. It may be that this needs to be done individually for the larger English speaking parts of the world, accidents elsewhere treated similarly with common sense. The UK AAIB produces formal reports for more serious accidents (and we could assume that they would create a formal report for any new serious accident) , the archive is here.

We could argue (or state in a new AIRCRASH guideline) that any accident not producing a formal report is not covered 'in detail'. I did notice that some of the formal reports covered accidents that resulted only in damage (but were potentially very serious), using this system (or similar) they could be included (where the project might not desire this). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Flight International covers most crashes, even non-fatal ones, non-notable ones, in detail. It's significant coverage, the seminal work for the public. Suddenly the Aviation project are declaring this source to be "insignificant"? Or its reports to be so? This needs to be resolved. (Oh, and the AAIB/NTSB etc, don't release reports for weeks/months/years after a crash, so if we're using those as our only reliable, "significant" source, please declare it as such...) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Formal reports are produced on many things, that's the nature of the bureaucracy. It's the reporting of the incident and the report were significant coverage may arise. This reporting in Flight of the inquiry into a 1954 crash makes (in part) for significant coverage; the reference to a crash (which probably also resulted in some sort of report) in the caption on this page however doesn't. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anyone dismissing Flight as a source here? When I used to read it (a long time ago) light aircraft accidents were rarely covered in detail, perhaps it has changed. I don't read it now so can't comment on it. My suggestion of formal AIB reports could/can be used in conjunction with other 'in detail' sources. As a potential example criteria a single page article on an accident on the BBC site would not be considered sufficient detail where 20 pages plus (which they have on the Glasgow police helicopter crash) would. Exploring all avenues here and nothing is set in stone, we have not even got as far as agreeing this may be a way forward or drafting a guideline page for consensus approval. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Factors affecting the notability of aviation accidents and incidents

Following the discussion in the first part of #Air accident AfDs - isolationism and hastiness I've written the first draft of a list of factors that influence the notability of aviation accidents and incident at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents/Factors. It is entirely based on my perceptions at the moment, so it requires work. Feel free to make minor edits, e.g. to improve wording or organisation, correct obvious errors, etc. and add things you believe are missing. If you add or rename a section though, please keep them in alphabetical order. I recommend discussing first any major changes or anything you aren't sure about to avoid simply replacing my bias/errors with one other person's, but I wrote it in project space rather than userspace explicitly to try and avoid any sense of ownership of it. I'm not sure whether discussion is best here or on the specific talk page, but try to keep it in one of the two places.

My hope is that it will be a useful guide to what aviation factors indicate notability/non-notability while recognising that there are other factors that need to be considered as well. Thryduulf (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Good idea! I would suggest we edit it where it is, but discuss it here at least for now. I'll leave a note on the talk page to that effect. - Ahunt (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I had a run though it and made a few small, minor tweaks. In general it looks like pretty good general guidance and advice, certainly nothing that would end up as a WP guideline, policy or could be cited at AfD, but I guess that is the point. - Ahunt (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's intended to be a structured aid to assessing the notability of events. Someone could refer to it in an AfD along the lines of "the AIRCRASH guide says that the most significant event at an airport is normally mentioned on that article, so a merge and redirect is better than deletion." or "This is a hull loss accident that seriously injured $notable_person and resulted in $airline being banned from EU airspace, and the guideline suggests that these are all things that make an accident more notable than average, so I recommend keeping." Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

That approach makes sense to me. - Ahunt (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a bit offputting to this reader when aircraft incidents that took off from a given airport are included within that airport's wiki page. For example Benjamín_Rivera_Noriega_Airport#Incidents. This crash itself had nothing to do with the originating airport and occurred many miles away. Is it OK to request moving or deleting these when they don't relate to the airport itself? What standards can be cited? 2600:1700:22F0:59EF:115D:343E:F834:D865 (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Norfolk helicopter crash

The outcome of this recent AfD has some guidance for this overall discussion. The closing admin said "The result was delete. Ultimately the WP:NOTNEWS argument has not been successfully refuted." - Ahunt (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It also looks like another editor has sent one of our example articles from above, February 1982 Korean Air Force C-123 accident, to AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/February 1982 Korean Air Force C-123 accident and the outcome of that may establish some precedent for this discussion as well. - Ahunt (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Very poorly formed AfD, no basis in policy. And looks like another opportunity to reduce the active editor base at WP:AVIATION as well. Shame. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the outcome of this AfD may help us here, in informing what we come up with as a final decision. So far this discussion seems to lean towards WP:GNG over WP:NOTNEWS, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Norfolk helicopter crash went the other way on that upon closing. Let's see how this one goes. Just for the record, personally I am not going to comment at the new AfD, just because I started and am sort of shepherding this discussion along here, but I encourage anyone else with an opinion to comment on the AfD and let's see what the closing admin decides. - Ahunt (talk) 12:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure. But I am staggered that, military or not, a crash involving at least 50 deaths is still considered "non-notable" (by some members of this project). The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well it seems to be the old debate of WP:GNG versus WP:NOTNEWS and this accident seems to be a classic case. There are reliable refs (GNG) but even 32 years later it didn't result in any lasting consequences beyond the deaths (NOTNEWS). As I noted above, every year in my country we have 3500 people die from the flu and no article on that annual event. If 3500 people had died in an aircraft accident there would be little doubt we would have an article on it, so not all deaths are considered equally. Then there is WP:NOTMEMORIAL to consider, which I take to mean that death alone does not rate an article. Let's see how the AfD goes. - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, well I know you guys like to run a tight ship, but I'm seriously surprised you haven't dared venture out to get the plethora of bus crash articles deleted, to apply a little consistency across Wikipedia transportation crash articles. It's little wonder there's so much confusion when bus crashes are so common yet even make it to ITN (perhaps twice in a year). The Rambling Man (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I would never say WikiProject Aircraft is a tight ship. One of the reasons it is such an active project is that we have lots of debate, disagreement and dissent. That helps keep people engaged. I think as a bunch the only thing we agree on is expanding aviation coverage, but not even how to do that. But that is why the project is so successful, there is room for everyone. As far as bus crashes go that is a bit out of our scope. As you can see here there isn't a clear agreement on how to deal with aircraft crashes yet. All of which reminds me that the editor who sent February 1982 Korean Air Force C-123 accident to AfD hasn't commented here yet. I should invite him, as I did you, since he obviously has some ideas on the subject! - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that bus crash which kills a couple of dozen people can feature on the main page while members here are determined to delete air crashes with over 50 fatalities. Is it any wonder there's confusion? While this project is aviation-dedicated, it shouldn't be so blinkered as to ignore what's going on the Wikipedia around it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to admit that I did nominate the article to stimulate discussion. One of the major stumbling blocks we have all come across is editors from outside WP:AVIATION railroading through articles which would not even get written by a regular Aviation editor. Some facts are self-evident:

1. Military crashes regardles of number of deaths are not notable in their own right, They are an operational hazard due to the very nature of military flying.
2. Notability increases markedly when subjects notable in their own right are affected by an aviation incident
3. Newspaper coverage alone is not enough to justify a stand alone article.
4. Mention in a list does not notability make

The list could go on. What I suggest is a nominated core of WP:Aviation administrators who can apply a ratified policy without the waters being muddied by non aviation sympathies. This pre-disposes that a policy is written based on WP:Aircrash. Good to see a healthy discussion going on!--Petebutt (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, you nominated the article to make a point? "editors outside WP:AVIATION" really stinks of ownership. This appears to be a core problem with this particular project, the rejection of "outsiders" and their pesky ideas to use common sense. A quote, not from me, but "Why does this WikiProject insist on trying to delete anything that doesn't agree with its fairly narrow-minded guideline, regardless of if it is actually notable or not?"....... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

We are a broad church, and its never good to extrapolate from one to the many. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Not my words, as I said. Perhaps the many need to do something to change the views of those "outside" the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:GraemeLeggett. The AfD was just speedily kept as badly thought out and not citing any policy reason to delete it, so I am not sure what the WP:POINT would have possibly been. Please note that that AfD was not brought to the WikiProject before hand for consultation and did not have any consensus to proceed, it was just one editor's idea. I think, given this extensive discussion, if it had been consulted in advance, then most project members probably would have stated that it would be better to sort this greater issue out here and gain a consensus, before wasting any further time on AfDs, but that is just my opinion. - Ahunt (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite clearly the POINT, as admitted above, was "to stimulate discussion". That's not what AFD should be used for. And as I said, the concerns I've raised are not my words. These seemingly bad faith AFDs aren't doing the project any good, nor is the staggering inability to use any common sense in this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that we were already having a pretty good discussion here. I have been careful to try to include people outside the project with different points of view to get the best consensus at the end, as well. - Ahunt (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting to compare how the Korean incident article compares with the 1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident of the same year. Stubby start to FA. 21:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Common sense

Why would the project seek to delete articles where 50+ (even 20+ people) are killed in an aviation disaster, while articles such as Alexian Lien beating are considered notable with some kind of long-lasting impact? Once again I'd implore the project to look outside it's narrow view, and try to get some perspective, some common sense, on what us, the common folk, find notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Well that is what we are here to discuss. You will note that Alexian Lien beatinghas been sent to AfD as "A road rage incident, one of millions every year, with no lasting impact, reported widely at the time but no clear demonstration of notability, this is, after all, not a newspaper." What would you suggest would determine whether an aircraft accident is worth having an article on then? - Ahunt (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Well yeah, I sent it there. It's my AFD, perhaps you'd care to contribute?! I've suggested that common sense play a part, and that this project looks outside its scope for a view on how the rest of the world views it and articles of a similar nature involving other incidents such as traffic accidents with mass casualties. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

LOL sorry I missed the signature! - Ahunt (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I think in both cases we are debating the same thing. Wikipedia policy requires that events not have articles unless they have lasting consequences. It isn't a WikiProject Aircraft issue, it is a Wikipedia-wide policy issue. - Ahunt (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

So I come back to my earlier question to you - which aircraft accidents should have articles on them? - Ahunt (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Just curious to know which article(s) with 50+ fatalities were sent to AfD (or were deleted)? Would have thought they would be 'snowy keeps' by their coverage in sources? There is a current problem with a serial sockpuppet creating possibly notable air accident articles which are being 'speedied' just because they were created by a sockpuppet (which doesn't seem to be the right way of handling it to me). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Tester for you guys

So who's going to be the first to nominate 2014 Algeria Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash for AFD as a non-notable military air crash? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I would be suprised if anybody would find this as not notable, the idea that most military air crashes are not notable was to stop a flood of articles on the thousands of mainly single and twin-crewed military aircraft that regularly crash, the RAF were loosing two or three hundred pilots a year in the 1950s and they were not unusual. All these are sad affairs but unless they hit something important or killed somebody notable they are OK just to be listed in the number of accident lists we have around. Military transport like the C-130 with loads of people on board in fatal accidents are going to be notable whatever interpretation of any guidelines we have say. MilborneOne (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

So it must be time to update AIRCRASH, at least to demonstrate some acknowledgement that massive loss of life (albeit in a military environment, with no likely procedural changes) satisfies the need for an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

"Military transport like the C-130 with loads of people on board in fatal accidents are going to be notable" because such accidents are extremely likely to meet GNG guidelines in receiving significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. That's all. - BilCat (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:AIRCRASH applies only to the inclusion of accidents in aircraft type, airport and other articles, not to stand alone articles. I think this is a good time to finish up the discussion above though and make a few clarifications to it as discussed. - Ahunt (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

How about moving the stand-alone section to the top of the page? Stand-alone AfDs are the main reason people end up at AIRCRASH and it does clearly spell out that they should follow GNG, EVENT and NOTNEWSPAPER which is what has been discussed at length above. Perhaps create a new shortcut anchored to that section, MAJORAIRCRASH? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I want to incorporate the parts that we did agree on in the discussion above into AIRCRASH. Hopefully I can get to that later this week as "Romeo Lima" has been slowing me down here recently. If anyone else would like to do it first they are welcome to do so! - Ahunt (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please give me an indication of the number of AFDs launched on standalone articles which were proposed under the auspices of WP:AIRCRASH considering what Andy has said above? E.g. the Apache crash in Norfolk was nominated under AIRCRASH and was deleted, yet I see Perenco Oil Helicopter crash still standing proud, flying under the AIRCRASH radar, an equally, if less notable accident. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And as AIRCRASH has always previously said, an article that meets AIRCRASH may also meet the GNG for a standalone article - if it didn't meet AIRCRASH it likely wouldn't. If an article was nominated for not meeting AIRCRASH, did meet the GNG, and got deleted anyway, that's not the fault of AIRCRASH, that's the fault of !voters who didn't do their research to see if the GNG was met. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh to you too. The number of articles which have been blown away by you and your project compadres under the guise of the bullshit AIRCRASH is now becoming clear. It's sad that you fail to acknowledge it. In fact, you, Bushranger, once said something along the lines of "the location" is irrelevant. Which, of course, is absurd. But now you start to claim that the !voters didn't appraise themselves of GNG, but AIRCRASH was thrust in their faces from start to finish.... You guys need to do some thinking. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Well my recollection is that pretty much all AfDs that started out as nominations based on "Fails AIRCRASH" pretty much failed on that. Most AfDs on aircraft accidents that I have seen stood or fell on WP:GNG. I am thinking in particular of 2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash and 2013 Rediske Air Otter crash AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Soldotna Airport Turbine Otter crash mentioned above, which clearly didn't make AIRCRASH, but got voted "keep" based on GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Conclusions

Well it has been over two weeks with no further discussion here, so I think we can consider this issue "talked-out" for now. The debate was good, although we didn't come up with a new concept of which air accidents should have stand alone articles beyond GNG, we did decide that AIRCRASH should be retained as guidance but needs a bit of clarification that it should not be be used on stand-alone articles. Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents/Factors was also a good start on some further thoughts on the subject. Since I have a bit of time now I'll make those changes and invite anyone else to improve on my changes. - Ahunt (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Guidlines need to be updated

This is a bit rediculous, I mean. If you could include an accident with about 50 injuries (no deaths) it would be notable? No, accidents are very valuable pieces of information and if their are about 20 or more injuries they should be included, it's time for a change of rules. RMS52 (talk) 05:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Fwiw, I support the removal of the info you added with this[6] edit. DexDor ^(talk) 20:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you want to change but non-fatal accidents are rarely notable if at all. MilborneOne (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I can think of three off the top of my head - the British Airways 777 landing short of the runway (27L?) at Heathrow, I think it was an A-340(?) runway overrun and belly flop into a 50' ravine during a storm at Toronto Pearson, and Sully's Miracle on the Hudson. Dcs002 (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

But broken necks? Serious injuries? I think this should be notable. RMS52 (talk) 06:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Why? it happens all the time in transport accidents otherwise we would have lots of bus/car/truck/aircraft/ship articles in a similar vein. That said I dont think we need to change anything here, if you really think any accident is notable to mention in an airport or airline article then the general notability guidelines would be more appropriate. MilborneOne (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The general press tends to sensationalize aircraft accidents, but ignore other types of accidents and I think it is important for Wikipedia to not follow that trend and treat all accidents the same. Therefore if we are gong to have an article about an aviation accident where, say four people were injured, then we should have articles on all car accidents where four people were injured. I personally don't mind where we draw the notability line, as long as all types of transportation are treated the same. - Ahunt (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I made a similar argument about a ifferent subject recently, and the objections I got largely concerned not righting great wrongs and following RS. Dcs002 (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

This is just my opinion: Take Air Transat Flight 236, it was listed because...? Aircraft problems? There was 80 injuries and no deaths and its mentioned, no damage to the aircraft as well RMS52 (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

In the Air Transat 236 incident the aircraft did in fact suffer structural damage, but the main reason for its notability in line with guide criteria is that the incident "... invoked a change in procedures, regulations or process(es) that had a wide effect on other airports or airlines or the aircraft industry". In this case both the manufacturer and several aviation authorities worldwide, including the US FAA and the UK CAA, issued Airworthiness Directives (AD) requiring changes to the flight manuals of several thousand in-service Airbus aircraft around the world. Some authorities mandated the changes immediately. The engine manufacturer also released a service bulletin, days later it was also mandated as an AD. The final report into the incident made 8 safety recommendations, mainly directed at Transport Canada, the DGAC of France, and the Civil Aviation Authority of the United Kingdom, as well as the EASA and civil aviation authorities of other states responsible for the manufacture of aircraft and major components. The recommendations included fuel leak detection and warning, fuel leak training and the safeguarding of flight recorders. In short - it was a big deal for the industry. SempreVolando (talk) 10:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok SempreVolando, I see your point now. RMS52 (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is over two years old. To cover some possibilities discussed above, I propose a 4th criteria to be added that will permit events to be accidents: Events deemed an accident by a national aviation safety agency.

In the US, that could be the NTSB or FAA.

Vanguard10 (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

That would add tens of thousands of accidents annually and would basically include all incidents where any aircraft was damaged or any person injured. For instance here is the Canadian criteria for reportable events. Most other countries are similar. These include every time a helicopter drops a slung load, an aircraft is refuelled with the wrong fuel or even a loss of separation incident occurs. - Ahunt (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh my, no!!! But that link is for an air occurrence, not an accident. So how about a 4th criteria, that of accident? Vanguard10 (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Even that would cause an issue. It seems that in Canada at last, for instance, there is no official definition of "an accident", just a reportable occurrence. Likewise the US FAA doesn't seem to have an official definition either. - Ahunt (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Crew names

Should crew names be included? The specific case is the Piasecki PA-97, an unusual helicopter/airship hybrid. The sole pilot is named in multiple sources. One editor is persistently removing this (3RR today) and citing "MOS" as a reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Where in the WP:MOS does it say that? - Ahunt (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Not seeing that in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies, but perhaps I am missing something? - Ahunt (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Well it must say it somewhere because it's evidently worth edit-warring and calling other editors "liars" over it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm calling you a liar for falsely accusing me of violating 3RR. I made an original edit, and reverted the name twice. That's not 3 reverts, and you know it. Crew names aren't generally included if the person isn't otherwise notable. Btw, how did you cite the reasons given for the crash with a dead link? - BilCat (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

It's all in the commentary on the video, and was there when I first added that paragraph. Back then I had some faith in the reading competence of WP readers and didn't realise that they needed refs to be repeated for every sentence in a para. Thank you for disabusing me of that optimism over people. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Rather than being a jerk and trying to start an edit war, you could have explained that from the beginning, preferably on the article's talk page. More than likely, I'd have reverted myself. Instead, you revert my good faith edits on sight, as you've done on many previous occasions. It's getting very old, and in this case reflects ownership on your part quite well. - BilCat (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

"jerk" ,"liar", 3RR - I'm getting a little tired of your obvious attacks. Drop it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Then don't act like a jerk or falsely accuse me. I've been tired of your revert-first attitude towards edits I make that you don't like for a long time, and it's bordering on harassment. You treat most WPAIR editors with disdain, and me most of all. Don't cry or whine when it blows up in your face. Grow up. - BilCat (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I removed the accident cause information because it was separated for the sourced sentence, and had the look of a recent OR addition. Granted, I did not check the history first, or I would have just tagged it instead, and that's my fault. The only thing I did 3 times the same way was removing the pilot's name, and I clearly explained my reason in both reverts, and unclearly in the first one. At no point in his edit summaries did Andy address the name removal in his TWO reverts. - BilCat (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

"had the look of a recent OR addition. " That's why articles have version histories - and this had been in since the first draft. But you'll happily go to 3RR without even looking at the provenance of a section you're questioning. That's just careless. The pilot's name incidentally is given prominently in almost every news report of the period - as we fundamentally judge notability by whether outside attention is paid to a topic, then this suggests that the name is significant. There is no pre-considered answer given to this in MOS or here, despite your terse claim. Also we have something called BRD - yet again, you're happy to repeatedly delete before you even think of joining a discussion that others are already active at. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring goes both ways, and you made 2 reverts before I did. I never made 3 reverts, so stop LYING, again. As to "yet again, you're happy to repeatedly delete before you even think of joining a discussion that others are already active at", I only discovered the discussion was taking place because I accidentally viewed your contributions. So you open a discussion without informing me it was taking place, and it's my fault for not knowing it was there? Typical. Again, you never once mentioned the pilot in your reverts, which is certainly edit warring on your part. I get you don't like me, and the feeling is mutual. I don't generally revert you even when I'd like to, because I know it will cause problems. But until you start assuming good faith, and discuss my edits with me before reverting on sight, we're going to have issues, especially if you then lie about how many times I reverted you. I'm not standing by and let you bully me into accepting what isn't true. If it's "uncivil" to point that out, then too bad. Stop lying about me violating 3RR, and I won't have cause to call you out for it. - BilCat (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Incident in Norway April 2016 =

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/norway-helicopter-crash-chopper-carrying-14-goes-down-near-bergen-1557462

Estimated to be 11 fataltites. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

New proposed draft of "Aircraft accidents and incidents" guidelines

All,

I have prepared a draft of a new version of this page, at User:Shelbystripes/WikiProject Aviation - Aircraft accidents and incidents. This is a substantial rewrite, and part of the intent is to provide a page that is useful both for use with general notability, and for determining sufficient notability for inclusion in a stand-alone article. Because it is so substantial, I prepared it in my sandbox instead of making edits to the page directly. However, if I don't get significant negative feedback, I will likely start making these edits into the current article. Please let me know what thoughts you have. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for putting that all together, I can see you have done a lot of work there and put a lot of thought into it and based on recent issues seen at deletion and other discussions. In general I agree with what you have written, I think you have hit most of the key issues and points.

I do think that it is not necessary to extensively quote from WP:GNG, just so that the page doesn't get out of synch as the source page is changed. It is probably sufficient to send readers to GNG to read there instead.

My other concern is that your new version of this page is very long and complex and greatly "fuzzifies" the standards. In then past WP:AIRCRASH was longer and less directive as well, but we found over many deletion discussions and talk page debates that it was really obvious that editors either didn't read it or when they did read it that they couldn't understand it, so we greatly simplified and shortened it. In general I think that has been a successful approach. Your new draft here is much longer and more vague than any previous version and I am just concerned that your attempt here to make it cover more situations in more detail, that it might just result in fewer people reading it, as WP:TLDR. My own thought is that if WP:AIRCRASH needs fixing that it should be made shorter and more clear, rather than longer and fuzzier. - Ahunt (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The current standards are only an essay, not a hard rule. I agree with Ahunt in that very complex standards can create problems. I also urge a discussion here, not on a sandbox. Sandboxes are often not edited by others because they are akin to a personal notebook. Instead, write up your vision in the sandbox and as a overall goal. Then discuss each section on the talk page one by one. I know it's slow but it's the best way. Vanguard10 (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a new guideline should be created on what to include in all Wikipedia articles. It might be that the fact introduced is a material or significant part of the subject; or that it is likely to have significant interest; or that it has significant coverage in reliable sources. What do you think of that? Vanguard10 (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

As we have learned over the years here, it needs to be very short, specific and clear. - Ahunt (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I see that it is a guideline not Manual of Style or policy. I also see that many article don't follow it. That's not something to get into an edit war over. I see mention in articles (not standalone articles) where the plane was damaged but not a hull loss and no injuries. One mention there was no damage at all or injuries but it was a close call involving possibly 1000 passengers on planes. I am not bothered by these examples. I don't see any cases in Wikipedia of abusive inclusions. Vanguard10 (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

On WP:WikiProject Aircraft we try to stick to it quite closely and generally fix any examples that don't match it, although there is always more work to be done to conform to it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The San Francisco International Airport article has an accident and incident section listing a 2017 Air Canada event. It was very widely covered in reliable sources and in the news. It was where an Air Canada jet nearly landed on top of 4 aircraft waiting in the taxiway. If it had not gone around (it did when it was only 50 feet away), probably 500-1000 people would have died. Yet, the accident was averted the last split second and there was no hull loss, no deaths, not even injuries or damage. According to the guidelines discussed, there should not be mention of the event. Something seems wrong when such a significant event should not be covered under these guidelines. I am not sure of the answer except that flexibility be allowed. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Notability criteria for military and light aircraft accidents in aircraft articles

I've been part of a little edit skirmish about an accident I've included in the article on the Piasecki HUP Retriever. Rather than prolonging this spat into an edit war, I'd like to present reasons why I believe that a few additional and rare classes of military and light aircraft accidents should qualify for inclusion in aircraft articles:

• Multiple aircraft were involved, and the aircraft in question was a primary causal factor in the accident;
• The accident causes five or more ground fatalities [five is an arbitrary number subject to discussion];
• Flyable examples were sufficiently rare that the accident effectively causes the type to be withdrawn from service, either because the sole airworthy example was destroyed, or because all other airworthy examples were grounded afterwards for precautionary reasons.

Real-world examples of such accidents are sufficiently rare that I don't believe they'll cause clutter in most aircraft articles. Thoughts and comments are welcome. Carguychris (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Light aircraft accidents are rarely notable, bottom line is that they need to have killed somebody notable or caused a major change in industry practice to get a mention. Most light aircraft accidents are just not noteworthy even those involving multiple aircraft. Very difficult to put figures on how many people are killed before it gets a mention and it would have to be weighed again on who it killed which per the current advice, putting figures on how many rarely works. Being the last airworthy example to be involved in an accident is not particularly noteworthy. The grounding of aircraft after an accidents is fairly common and doesnt last long, it would have to cause the withdrawl of the fleet permanently to be of note. Note the current advice was evolved after a lot of discussion! MilborneOne (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed tweaks

I'd like to propose the following:

1. carve-out - Military aircraft crashes that result in more than 5 fatalities may be notable when outside of high-intensity conflict. (e.g. 2000 Marana V-22 Crash would be a peacetime crash with 19 deaths - contrast the same with a cargo plane with paratroopers going down on D-Day which is not).
2. Exclusion - the essay currently does not distinguish between cargo flights and passenger flights - lumping this all together as civil aviation (airline and large civil - vs. light aircraft). It has been my impression at AfD that even minor mishaps on full passengers planes may be notable and receive quite a bit of coverage. However, cargo flights (with 1-2 crew members and whole lot of cargo) are often non-notable even if the entire crew perish. I suggest we separate non-passenger flights and say that coverage should be evaluated on a case by case basis (and that these tend to be less notable than passenger flights).

Thoughts ? Icewhiz (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

List of fictional airplane crashes

I have started List of fictional airplane crashes. I'm sure participants in this project have noticed more of those than I have! bd2412 T 21:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

LOL, well there is a real "can-o-worms"! - Ahunt (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I expect that if it grows large enough, it can be further sectioned between purely fictional accounts and fictionalizations of real events, and perhaps between commercial airliners and light aircraft. bd2412 T 01:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I am thinking it fails WP:NOTESAL. - Ahunt (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure you'll find reliable sources comparing the relative authenticity of movie airplane crashes. bd2412 T 03:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

That policy is pretty clear that we need to find at least a few refs that discuss a number of fictional aircraft crashes as a list or in comparison or something similar, to show that a List of fictional airplane crashes is a notable subject. - Ahunt (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Value of a hull loss as a criteria

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So, why is it that the 8 July 2022 loss of an US Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet that blew overboard from its carrier would not considered important? There is a major economic factor, namely that the replacement cost of this aircraft would be approximately $67 million dollars. This is not important? It certainly would be to the US taxpayer.

Though, this deficiency would be in accord with most aircraft articles: very few list the unit cost of the aircraft.

It would make sense to place a dollar / euro / ruble / etc. floor in such incidents, and allow currently produced military aircraft hull losses to be included if their replacement cost is substantial. I'd vote for a $3 to $5 million threshold.

Thank you.Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

As our inclusion criteria states, military aircraft loses are very common and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. In the case of F/A-18s, a large number have crashed or been damaged and we are not going to list them all. Setting a dollar figure for inclusion would not work for two reasons: first because repair values are almost never announced and second, because they are always changing over time, due to inflation. The higher you set the chosen number, the more you get WP:RECENTISM. Basically, as our criteria notes, unless there was the death of a notable person or a WP:LASTING change to procedures, groundings, modifications or similar, as a result of the accident, then it is really all just WP:NOTNEWS. As far as why articles do not list aircraft prices, see WP:NOPRICES. - Ahunt (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOPRICES refers to businesses. Military aircraft are purchased with public money, and once purchased are national assets. Not one line in NOPRICES applies once the asset has been acquired by the government; and even before acquisition, this interpretation of NOPRICES would prevent any presentation of defense budgets.

Also, I see costs in many articles on naval ships and army vehicles, especially recent ones. I submit this interpretation of NOPRICES for aircraft is completely arbitrary, inconsistent, and non-encyclopedic. The current interpretations of RUNOFTHEMILL and NOTNEWS should be reconsidered.Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Another point: why do we have 'Accidents and Incidents' sections in military aircraft articles. If we are going to enforce this 'consensus' should not they all be deleted? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

We have accidents and incidents sections in military aircraft articles because there are accidents and incidents that meet the stated criteria: they either involve the deaths of notable people (people with bios already on Wikipedia) or the accident resulted in some sort of lasting effects, such as fleet groundings and modifications, or changes in ATC, SAR or operational procedures or something similar. These criteria were worked out by a large consensus of editors over quite a lengthy period of time and are mostly to avoid flooding military aircraft articles with lists of thousands of non-notable accidents.

We had a project-wide discussion a few years back on the inclusion of aircraft costs. They used to be in the aircraft type article infobox, but due to the policy WP:NOPRICES (in particular because prices change, are hard to accurately source, fleet discounts, inclusion of infrastructure costing and also because Wikipedia is not a buyer's guide). There was a solid consensus to remove all aircraft costs, which was then completed over several years. - Ahunt (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, I fail to see anything in NOPRICES that affects my argument. The consensus view also means NOVALUE, NOTAXES, and NOBUDGET. No need to reply, I think I've exhausted this. Too bad I arrived to late to have contributed a few years back.

BTW, unless a grounding is permanent, wouldn't it also be RUNOFTHEMILL and NOTNEWS? These "happen all the time" as well. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

A temporary fleet grounding and then no changes is not significant on its own, since there is no lasting effect, which is why I said "fleet groundings and modifications". - Ahunt (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.