Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FedEx Express Flight 1478

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FedEx Express Flight 1478

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

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

Not enough lasting effect to get beyond WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hull losses are notable, this was a particularly bad one, fortunately everyone survived, but it definitely got lasting coverage. [1] SportingFlyer T·C 22:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lasting coverage on a large airliner hull loss of a Boeing 727. Easily meets WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Fails WP:PERSISTENCE. Not notable enough for a stand-alone article. An entry at FedEx Express mentioning the crash is enough.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete+redirect. Amendment. The crash is already included in FedEx Express. The description there can be expanded.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except it doesn't fail persistence. The incident was covered by Florida papers for over a year after it happened, including on the front page of the Tampa newspaper [2] over a year after it occurred and in Tallahassee [3] almost two years after the crash. This was a significant crash. SportingFlyer T·C 00:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second time was when the NTSB released their report. I'm not really convinced of persistence after reading the article as the content came from the report. – The Grid (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like expected news cycle - the accident, beginning of inquiry, publication of inquiry findings. I would expect the same for any aircraft crash. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact the AfD is breaking this way is exceptionally surprising to me. We have a hull loss of a major jetliner which was covered by the local paper for two years and was covered on the front pages of other newspapers for over a year and has been the subject of at least one additional non-newspaper article per this (if that isn't scholarly itself), The Puzzle of the Crash of Fedex Flight 1478: Implications for Colour Vision Standards in Aviation. This is far from a routine accident, which is "aircraft slides off runway" and then you never hear about it again. Unlike the various "airplane slides off runway" articles we frequently discuss, WP:NOT crystal clearly doesn't apply here, to me at least. SportingFlyer T·C 10:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue: does the article stand on its own? It's mandatory that the NTSB reviews and reports incidents like this. Did anything change within standard flight procedures as a result from this accident? You link a study which also uses the NTSB report as its citation on page 36 as footnote 106. The Puzzle of the Crash of Fedex Flight 1478: Implications for Colour Vision Standards in Aviation is footnote 107 in this report. Can that be verified? How is that referenced report used in relation here? Educate us on what makes this unique. This would be similar to a BRD discussion on its talk page. – The Grid (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When did "uniqueness" become a requirement for keeping an article on an airplane crash? This passes WP:PERSISTENCE (which is for small events which only get one cycle of news coverage) and WP:GNG with flying colours. The article on colourblindness is here, by the way. SportingFlyer T·C 23:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking because I see WP:PERSISTENCE as a poor argument. The accident happened. The NTSB report was done. The newspapers reported about the crash and the release of its report. I find it interesting that a proposal for guidelines at WP:AIRCRASH came to the same questions about aircraft articles. It's obviously just an essay but you can't tell me previous AfD for similar accidents didn't discuss similar questions that I'm asking. – The Grid (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're talking about the 2014 discussion on the WP:AIRCRASH talk page. In that conversation, Ahunt (who has !voted keep and was a WP:NOTNEWSPAPER advocate) noted a sliding scale between article notability between a newspaper writing about a Cessna sliding off a runway (which would be clearly deleted) and TWA Flight 800 (which would be clearly kept.) The key concept of notability actually goes a step above WP:GNG (which is just the test) - it's "worthy of notice." I don't think an aviation accident has to kill someone or change the way we fly in order to be notable as you seem to be proposing - ignoring the NTSB report, major newspapers wrote feature stories on the crash months/years after the crash happened, not to mention the hull loss. In my book, that's "worthy of note." The fact those articles may have been based on the NTSB report is irrelevant, as the release of the NTSB report itself was something worth reporting on. This may not be TWA 800 notable, but it's clearly over the bar. SportingFlyer T·C 00:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry for being a pain. You can collapse this discussion if it warrants going off the scope of AfD. – The Grid (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We have a hull loss of a large airliner. One of the contributing causes was highly unusual. GNG easily met here. Notability is not temporary. Mjroots (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hull losses of airliners on scheduled services have an established consensus as being notable. And as mentioned, WP:NOTTEMPORARY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, hull loss of large airliner. Vici Vidi (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, or question, really. Could someone please point out where consensus was established that aircraft accidents are notable enough for a standalone article? My understanding of WP:AIRCRASH is that that criteria warrants inclusion on a "List of" article. I've participated in several AfD discussions about air crashes, and this is the first I'm hearing of it. Granted, I don't know if any of those accidents included the loss of a hull, but none of those discussions brought up this consensus. If someone could please point it out, I'll gladly withdraw the nom.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIRCRASH is a guide as to when an accident should be included in a list, and there are plenty of places for accidents to be included in lists: by airport, by aircraft type, et cetera. We have heaps of standalone articles on aircraft accidents which pass WP:GNG and event/news notability guidelines. Using the "sliding scale" criteria I've outlined above, I'd say WP:AIRCRASH is more for when an accident may be notable enough for a list even if it's not notable enough for its own article, though many accidents which pass WP:AIRCRASH will be anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 15:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, that doesn't really answer my question as to where the consensus criteria exists. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: I'm really not sure what you're asking about then, sorry. Aviation crash articles could be deleted for failing WP:GNG or either the event or newsworthiness criteria of WP:NOT and would be determined on a case-by-case basis, though accidents with deaths or with a hull loss generally get past wherever the line is. Most crashes which make it to AfD are routine and recent. I'm not sure there's specific consensus for or against that written anywhere, and there's no SNG I know of. Part of the reason I'm confused is that the way in which you've asked the question implies that aviation crashes should only be included in lists, but we've had articles on notable crashes for almost 20 years here. SportingFlyer T·C 17:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I see the above line of questioning (both) to be totally relevant and important. I am very appreciative to see questioning that is more productive that just a !vote because there was a "hull loss". It seems to me the "sliding scale" is more of a natural phenomenon from a routine "occurrence", to one with loss of lives, and including a hull loss or the added third criteria. The coverage will certainly increase with the severity of an occurrence. "Just" a hull loss might not garner a stand alone article. For an example: A hurricane hits an airport and destroys 5 planes. This would not be note-worthy for standalone status of the aircraft. Annex 13 gives the definition of "...from the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until all such persons have disembarked", or as mentioned above "on scheduled services", and this is echoed at WP:AIRCRASH. It might be interesting to note that the above mentioned 2015 "non-newspaper article" was preceded by a 2005 article concerning CVD and neither resulted in any aviation rule changes that I am aware of. Onel5969 the reason you don't hear of WP:AIRCRASH at AFD is because: #1, it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles and #2, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting. Otr500 (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Two non-English Wikipedias already have it and the report has a lot of info. Tigerdude9 (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.