Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UPS Airlines Flight 6: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:05, 6 September 2010

UPS Airlines Flight 6

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

Per Wikipedia:NOTNEWS. There have been so many recent air crashes and not all of them seem to be significant. Article received routine news coverage and this is not an indication of notability, but newsworthiness, the two not being interchangeable. —Mike moral ♪♫ 00:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Keep. This accident will serve as a textbook case in the future. Never has there been this type of accident in a nearly state of art aircraft. We will learn wether or not systems such as fire detection and surpression, as well as the types of masks, goggles, and training the crew were given could have been better?[reply]

Delete. The only remotely historically significant aspect appears to be that it is the first fatal/serious accident for UPS (although bizarrly, the news coverage doesn't seem to even say that, so maybe it isn't?). And per the WP:AVIATION essay, without any other defining characteristics, it does not warrant coverage outside of their article. Other than that, I agree with the nom that, for a deadly 747 aircrash, the coverage is very much as could be expected, which is as the nominator points out, is absolutely not an indication of lasting notability, per WP:EVENT, which is of course, the consensus backed Wikipedia Guideline extending the interpretation of WP:GNG and WP:NOT#NEWS for specific advice on treatment of current events just like this.... MickMacNee (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference found for first fatal for UPS Airlines and info added to article. Mjroots (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nomination rationale on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Parcel Service Flight 6, which I've now withdrawn in favour of this AFD. Strange Passerby (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned before was the fact that accidents happen on a routine basis and therefore does not qualify for notability. If this is the case then why is there around 20 pages covering air accidents? Are we planning to delete all these as well? Also mentioned before was the fact that 747's rarely ever crash. Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 03:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. See also WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because other such articles exist is not good reason for keeping this one. Strange Passerby (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An incident of this visibility will get beyond the "Article received routine news coverage and this is not an indication of notability, but newsworthiness, the two not being interchangeable." - An accident report will happen. News coverage will continue to cover the developments regarding the investigation. The air accident articles that get deleted are typically minor turbulence incidents or incidents that do not result in extensive reports. Two deaths and a totaling of the aircraft will result in continued, notability proving news coverage. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. See also WP:CRYSTAL - just how can you be so sure that international news coverage will "continue to cover ... the investigation"? There's no way of telling. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; WP:EVENT states "It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer as early coverage may lack perspective and be subject to factual errors. Many articles on events are created in anticipation of their notability. Anticipation is the creation of an article on a recent event with the expectation that it will meet inclusion guidelines, before the duration of coverage or any lasting effect is certain." This appears to be the case here. There is no proof that the eventual investigation's findings will be significant enough to meet inclusion guidelines. Strange Passerby (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. "This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Full investigations have not been carried through yet. So I encourage that tis article in the meantime not be deleted. Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 04:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. There is a way of telling. Study previous aviation accidents and their media coverage. El Al Flight 1862 (another cargo flight), a cargo 747 which crashed, had the same cycle of events. FedEx Express Flight 80 will have the same cycle of events. So did other accidents with passenger airliners (Air France Flight 447, TWA Flight 800, etc.) The reports almost always happen. The constant and lingering coverage almost always happens. "Full investigations have not been carried through yet." but an investigation will happen. The only thing WP:CRYSTALBALL covers is "what is the cause?" We won't know that until the investigation concludes. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A hull-loss accident involving a very large modern aircraft such as the Boeing 747-400 should be notable enough to sustain an article on Wikipedia. Adding to the notability is the fact that it is the first fatal accident suffered by UPS Airlines. As others have pointed out, an investigation is taking place. Expect an interim report with about a month. The final report will take 1 - 2 years. The only part of WP:CRYSTAL that would be breached is if a cause was speculated upon. There seem to be more air crashes this year because there are. 10 year average is 23 crashes with 616 fatalities. So far in 2010, there have been 21 crashes with 773 fatalities, so it is a worse than average year (Aviation Safety Network). Mjroots (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major operator, crew deaths, large aircraft hull loss, UPS's first major accident per cited and unchallenged source), NTSB involment = Lasting news coverage = Notability. - BilCat (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per BilCat. Mathmo ^Talk 07:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-per WhisperToMe, MjRoots, and BilCat. First, it's only been less than 48 hours since the incident, so the media coverage is all there really is (investigations will be ongoing for a long time). Second, and this is been stated several times before, hull losses involving 747s (one of the most-produced jet airliners) are fairly rare; this also involves an airline (UPS Airlines) that previously had not had a crew or passenger fatality. While the airline has had a couple of major incidents, as shown in a section of their article, this accident is noteworthy enough of its own space. As things evolve, this article can be edited to rely less on the media coverage itself and more on the facts; the facts just have not emerged yet.--SteveCof00 (talk) 09:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Huge aircraft, important airline, scheduled flight, deaths, notable enough. (Gabinho^>:) 10:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. It is not just "routine news coverage" as defined in WP:ROUTINE. Routine news coverage for a plane crash would just be a short notice that a plane has crashed, with some basic facts about the flight, number of deaths etc. (like the typical coverage after crashes of small GA planes in local newspapers). The widespread coverage in this case (Google news mentions >1300 articles) however includes comprehensive speculation about the cause, comparison to other crashes; there are already follow-up articles about the identification of the victims and discovery of a flight recorder as well as the beginning of an investigation, indicating that there will be further follow-up coverage. The crash is therefore at least "very likely to be notable" per WP:EVENT. --memset (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note WP:109PAPERS. So what if nearly every agency reported the crash? Notability is not newsworthiness, clear the crash was newsworthy, but is it really notable? Can we really determine if this crash will be significant still in one month? One year? A decade? How can we determine this two days after the event? I fail to see how. —Mike moral ♪♫ 18:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we cannot know for sure now how significant the crash will be in a year, we have to guess this using the information available now. Waiting a year before creating articles about events like this, to see how notable they really are (as you seem to suggest), is nonsense, because even if the crash is still significant then, fewer people will care about it then and contribute to the article.

To claim that this crash is not notable and the article should be deleted, you have to explain why exactly it will not be significant in a year or decade. Just mentioning NOTNEWS is not enough.--memset (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.

A long comment on the relevance of investigations etc. Read ir not, I don't care, it's more for my sanity, and proving to future generations that not everybody interpretted N in the way that this Afd is perfectly showing often happens in aircrash articles MickMacNee (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Afd shows exactly what the problem is with this apparent obsession in some editors with creating articles based on news coverage of aircrashes, and then claiming it is not a news article. Frankly, 'it is being investigated', is not, and never will be, something that will EVER make it into an aircrash notability guideline. Why? Because an investigation is a routine part of air crashes. People believing this fact makes this crash significant might as well be claiming that a single cinema release is evidence of automatic notability of a film (a concept which was roundly rejected years ago). How did that come about I hear you ask? Well, the people who know about films realised that a single cinema release is a routine aspect of making films, and they wrote, and stick to, their notabillity guideline with full realisation that the GNG is not a free pass to ignore WP:NOT, and specifically NOT#NEWS and NOT#INFO, and that in order to be notable, there must be something significant about the film's life cycle and existence, beyond the routine aspects.

And if people somehow think death or hull losses make any difference to this, it really doesn't. Every single instance of a fatal aircrash or hull loss is always investigate by a body like the NTSB, and will always get large amounts of news coverage, so if what people really want to say is, every fatal aircrash or hull loss is automatically notable, then just say it, and then that can be put into a proposed Guideline and people can try and get it approved, so it can actually be cited it as an indisputable non-policy violating fact in Afd's, without people having to bother to consider whether the accident or the investigation has to involve some kind of unusual or significant outcome or aspect, to take it beyond the routine.

And yes, you can even try and get support for the idea that 747's falling out of the sky it is so massively unusual or interesting that this should also always denote automatic notability, although having seen people argue that tiny island-hopping airliner falling out of the sky is also automatically significant, I don't see the point. Hopefully though any guideline will be a little more detailed and nuanced than 'huge plane=significant crash', but you get the idea I hope.

And then, if that gets done, everybody who sees these arguments as a blatant violation of NOT#NEWS and the constant creation of these articles as a blatant raping of Wikinews' mission, can just move on with their lives. Trying to pretend that all these routine things occuring, somehow always makes an accident historically significant, misses the point of the nomination by a country mile frankly, and when deconstructed, it really is simply just a vague wave to the GNG. And the GNG was categorically not written to greenlight the automatic inclusion of anything just based on getting lots of news coverage, because the GNG is a Guideline, and WP:NOT is core Policy. Which is something a lot of keepers always seem to dismiss in aircrash Afds. The EVENT Guideline was notionally written to reconcile the two for events, but for aircrahses, in my eyes, it is not working, as people are just reading small details of it, without undertsanding the big picture behind it. And no, this is not something IAR was written to cater for, it is a very normal aspect of the pedia, that is dealt with by truthfully recognising the contradiction, and redrafting the guidance, not continually ignoring existing policy and guidelines at Afd.

And another classic feature is that yet again in this Afd, even if there are guidelines, they are apparently ignorable pretty much all the time. The AVIATION essay, which has always been claimed to be an aircrash notability Guideline in progress, states very clearly that this being the 'first fatal crash for UPS' does not justify an article. That just gets ignored though in this case. Why? You tell me. I absolutley genuinely have no idea why this happens, or why some closing administrators seem to completely ignore it is happening.

At the end of the day, all people seem to want to do in these Afds in my eyes, is try to turn Wikipedia into a competitor for all the other resources that document aircrashes in detail, because I am pretty sure that no general encyclopoedia such as Brittanica would ever hold this much avi-crash cruft, for the historical record. All this does that I can see, is dilute Wikipedia into a resource that, for someone actually looking for genuinely significant aircrashes with proven historical relevance, is pretty much useless.

The cause behind this problem appears to me to be that a lot of people seem to want to interpret the word 'significant', as in historically significant, as meaning 'serious', as in serious enough to make the news. They are not the same. A big, fatal, crash, is serious, but truly historically significant? Well, the test I suppose is whether we have similar articles from the 1970s about crashes just like this, just becuase a couple of people died and it was a big plane and there was an investigation. I would say we don't, and the reason we are getting them now, is simply pure recentism. The fact that aircrashes are happening, and people dying, is a routine part of life. It was in the 70s, it is now. Frankly, when compared to the significance of the accidents of the 60s, 70s and 80s detailed in this list, a lot of the entries for the 2000s and beyond look like total news trivia. And that is why these Afd's are killing Wikipedia as a genuinely relevant encyclopoedia. MickMacNee (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Mjroots. yet another waste of time by an editor who doesn't seem to have read WP:NOTLAW--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice little piece of ABF right there. I wonder if any wandering admin is watching out for CIVIL violations in these Afds, as I have been assured is actually happening. MickMacNee (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's ironic you want to cite BURO to claim this Afd is a waste of time. If these outcomes are so common, BURO makes it pretty clear that there should actually already be a Guideline somewhere to justify it, as the existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. However, I have looked high and low, and I have never once found a Guideline that even comes close to what Mjroots suggests makes a notable aircrash. So, you can either keep on running around making these kinds of afd votes displaying just how much contempt you have for people who don't follow your interpretation of existing policies, or you can try and write the Guideline you seem to think documents common practice and common sense for these aircrashes. Although I warn you, the folks at VPP are pretty hot on what BURO handily describes as the principles of policies, and very much realise that written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously unless there is a good reason they may be changed to reflect evolving consensus. MickMacNee (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's nice to know I "waste[d]" your time. Aren't you the one who to the effort to click "Edit" and time in the wikicode to say delete? So I don't know how I caused you to "waste your time." —Mike moral ♪♫ 18:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, pretty much per everyone who's pointed out hull loss, investigation, first fatal UPS crash, etc. C628 (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:AIRCRASH standards. Spikydan1 (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly? A3? I don't see any other qualifying criteria. Not only is it an essay, it makes it pretty clear that if the only unusual aspect is the UPS first fatal accident angle per A3, then no, a separate article is not justified - If the accident or incident matches criteria only in this section, then coverage should normally be on the article about the aircraft or airline. MickMacNee (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Articles for this should be at Wikinews, not here. We can't have an article for every single plane crash, should we? Diego Grez (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we can't, but this (747 crashing + the fact its a UPS plane) isnt like every other plane crashes. And you would be surprised how many other articles on plane crashes we have, most havingless significance than this. Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 02:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as only the second fatal accident in a 747-400, the last was ten years ago so not that common. If the investigation turns up nothing unusual or does not generate any airworthiness directives then perhaps it can be reconsidered for AfD then. MilborneOne (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and after the numerous comments putting this AFD into context, I am invoking WP:SNOWBALL. Bzuk (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What/where is the rationale behind your keep !vote? —Mike moral ♪♫ 18:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well referenced hull loss. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is just a vote. —Mike moral ♪♫ 18:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has WP:RS and may seem like a news, one time, event, but still passes WP:N in my opinion. I agree with Bzuk that this Afd is a really big snowball. Pmedema (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my earlier comment, this AFD has a snowball's chance..., the latest count is overwhelmingly in favour of Keep. Bzuk (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this counting exercise of yours, ignoring your invalid double-vote of course, are you just counting people who have made valid votes, or just counting period, including even the bad arguments? And are you applying some sort of weight to people's opinions, or are you giving equal weight between people who have given an articulate rationale with reference to a policy they clearly understand, (or at least have conveyed enough information that you can accept their assertion in good faith), with those who have just turned up to serve up some acronyms or basic assertion. Have you ever read How to discuss an AfD? Are you absolutely certain this is a SNOW case, when nobody has even replied to valid challenges? Have you ever read WP:STEAM? Or WP:PI? Why haven't you even offered anyone any biscuits for turning up and commenting, even though it's apparently a lost cause? MickMacNee (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? I gave my opinion (!voted) more then once in this Afd!? (not counting this comment...) That would be done in human error, which I am capable of but in looking around, I don't quite see where you think I made such an error. Pmedema (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking to Bzuk, hence the indentation. MickMacNee (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:N, which is the deciding standard. - Ahunt (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I count 15 keep !votes, seven of which are just votes, without a proper rationale behind them, one "Keep" vote from Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) without any reasoning, a "Keep per BilCat" from Mathmo (talk · contribs), a keep from Gabinho (talk · contribs) without a "why" behind the rationale, a "waste of time" from Wikireader41 (talk · contribs), failure to state why from Spikydan1 (talk · contribs), Bzuk (talk · contribs) stating a keep per WP:SNOW without explaining why the article should be kept, a keep from Nimbus227 (talk · contribs) without citing a policy, and Ahunt (talk · contribs) doesn't explain what it meets notability standards. And three delete !votes all explaining why it should be deleted and one exceedingly long comment from MickMacNee (talk · contribs). I request the closing admin take into account all these !votes and the comment before closing this AfD and close based on the merit of the argument instead of the number of !votes/votes. —Mikemoral♪♫ 21:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing "based on the merit of the argument instead of the number of !votes/votes"is actully SOP, and acting like it isn't going to happen here unless you ask for it is bad faith. You always have the option of appealing the result if you have reason to suspect the closer merely counted votes, ut at least wait until it's closed first. - BilCat (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Disregarding the disparaging comments here by at least two editors that certainly do not meet the standards of civility, and making the haughty argument that some votes/comments are not to be respected because the editors have not fully addressed the question, is attempting to derail the process. This article meets the standards of notability, has adequate reference sources and has engendered a great deal of attention by numerous authors. The event is a major hull loss of a 747, and has international connections, with the airline/carrier involved. The aforementioned article is not a stub, and because of its length and coverage, would certainly not be incorporated into the main Boeing 747 article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    - And also may I point out that in order to delete their has to Obvious Consensus to Delete ( as opposed to merely consensus) per WP:NotEarly. How anybody can still think that their is Obvious consensus to delete here is beyond comprehension. I agree with Bzuk and Pmedema WP:SNOW clearly applies here--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think it is disparaging in the least to expect people to read, understand, and comply with, the instructions given at WP:AFD. Infact, instead of being disparaging, it is just plain good advice. If more people did it, there would be less instances of people totally wasting there time here by making completely invalid arguments, such as your 'it's not a stub' or 'lot's of people have worked on it' comments. MickMacNee (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - This has taken on a unsavoury tone, keep your comments to the topic, rather than making comments about other editors. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
        Please keep your replies on topic too. If anything unsavoury is occuring here, it is your continuing insinuations that something dodgy is going on, when in actual fact, in an AFD, comments about whether the proper procedures are being followed by editors are not, is very much allowed, and expected. MickMacNee (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The topic meets notability as it is well documented, uses reliable sources, has no obvious bias or opinion, covers a significant subject/event and especially, has the consensus agreement from interested parties (editors) for its inclusion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
        The nominator has not challenged the reliability of the sources, the neutrality of the article, or even how well it is documented. The rest of your post covers issues whose validity will not benefit from any more basic assertion in here I don't think. MickMacNee (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 *:How exactly? A3? I don't see any other qualifying criteria. Not only is it an essay, it makes it pretty clear that if the only unusual aspect is the UPS first fatal accident angle per A3, then no, a separate article is not justified - ''If the accident or incident matches criteria only in this section, then coverage should normally be on the article about the aircraft or airline.'' [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 15:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * '''Delete''' Not notable. Articles for this should be at Wikinews, not here. We can't have an article for every single plane crash,  should we? [[User:Diego Grez|Diego Grez]] ([[User talk:Diego Grez|talk]]) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
+::Of course we can't, but this (747 crashing + the fact its a UPS plane) isnt like every other plane crashes. And you would be surprised how many other articles on plane crashes we have, most havingless significance than this. <strong>[[User:Fattyjwoods|<span style="color:black">Fattyjwoods</span>]]</strong> <sup><em>[[User talk:Fattyjwoods|<span style="color:green">Push my button</span>]]</em></sup> 02:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' as only the second fatal accident in a 747-400, the last was ten years ago so not that common. If the investigation turns up nothing unusual or does not generate any airworthiness directives then perhaps it can be reconsidered for AfD then. [[User:MilborneOne|MilborneOne]] ([[User talk:MilborneOne|talk]]) 16:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * '''Keep'''  and after the numerous comments putting this AFD into context, I am invoking [[WP:SNOWBALL]]. [[User:Bzuk|Bzuk]] ([[User talk:Bzuk|talk]]) 16:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)