Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FedEx Express Flight 647

FedEx Express Flight 647

FedEx Express Flight 647 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Not a notable incident. There was neither a significant loss of life, nor was there any new regulation(s) introduced as a result. And while it was a complete hull loss, it was a non-commercial flight, and wikipedia is not a list of aircraft hull losses. (It fails WP:AIRCRASH too as far as I can tell.) Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 05:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - Biography of a plane notable for only one event. WP:EVENT requires the event to be the subject of ongoing and sustained coverage demonstrating its historic notability, for it to have impact on a wide demographic or geographic swathe, or be the catalyst or result of another notable event. It does not meet these criteria. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The notability requirements for this article should be taken from WP:AIRCRASH, considering that all air crashes, including those that result in loss of life, are a single event. As for sustained coverage, please see the article. Silverseren^C 09:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, WP:AIRCRASH is a project level essay, and so non-binding on two separate counts. Even were it a guideline or, gasp, a policy, it would still be subservient to WP:N as elaborated by the documented community consensus at WP:EVENT. - DustFormsWords (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - the article could be improved, and sources are availale to do this (Aviation Safety Network, NTSB report), but needing improvment is not a reason to delete. In response to the nominator's rationale, the NTSB report identified issues with ATC at Memphis did not give fire-fighting vehicles sufficient priority in accessing the airport, delaying their reaching the burning aircraft. One would trust that the issues were addressed as a result of the investigation. Another issue raised was insufficient training of FedEx Express employees in the use of emergency evacuation slides, leading to the incorrect deployment of a slide as a life raft as intended in the case of a ditching. Again, one would trust that this issue was addressed (they were, section 1.17.2.5, NTSB report gives details). I accept that this was a training flight, but the severity of the accident gives sufficient notability to sustain an article on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikiprojects notified Mjroots (talk)

• Not every legislative change is notable, and the one you're referring to sounds like it's at the lower end of the scale and probably non notable, even if it weren't in the future and therefore irrelevant. The article can be recreated at such time as you're able to demonstrate the crash is a precursor to another notable event. - DustFormsWords (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

There are no WP:CRYSTAL issues in my rationale. The event happened 7 years ago, I have already shown that the training issues were addressed by FedEx. It is almost a certainty that the fire-fighting issues raised in the NTSB report were also addressed. Failure to address them would have left the agencies involved open to claims of negligence should another accident occur and firefighters were again delayed in reaching a burning aircraft because ATC did not give them priority clearance on the surface, even if doing so meant ordering aircraft to abort landings or take-offs. Mjroots (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I read "one would trust" as speculation on them happening, rather than speculation on their causation. I withdraw my comments about WP:CRYSTAL. - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep I have added some references to the article. This article meets criteria #2 for airline articles, "The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport". Silverseren^C 09:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• There are no criteria for airline articles, and if there were they would still be subservient to the general notability guidelines as explained at WP:EVENT. - DustFormsWords (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• And what about the current sources doesn't meet the GNG? They discuss the crash in significant detail. Silverseren^C 09:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - The point is, why is the crash, and this aircraft, important? It was not a commercial passenger flight; it was a cargo flight that happened to crash. These things are a dime a dozen. The five passengers mentioned in the article are actual "deadheading" flight personnel. The WP:AIRCRASH] essay lists limitations on small personal aircraft crashes for notability, but guidelines are so vague when it comes to non-commercial large aircraft one really needs to defer to WP:EVENT and general notability guidelines. -- (nominator) Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 10:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• And to answer the question, they don't satsify the GNG because they don't overcome the tests of WP:EVENT, which is the community consensus on which notable events are encyclopaedic enough to overcome the barrier that Wikipedia is not a news service. - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Why? The DC-10-10 is not a small GA aircraft. It is an airliner with a Maximum Take-Off Weight approaching 200 tonnes. The accident led to the loss of this particular aircraft. The aircraft was a commercial aircraft, FedEx were not using it for their own pleasure, but to earn themselves more profit. All sources in the article are independent of FedEx, thus establishing verification x (third party) reliable sources = notability. WP:NOTNEWS is something that is applied to articles on current events, not something that is now 7 years old, i.e, HISTORY. Mjroots (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• WP:NOTNEWS applies to newsworthy events, not current events. A topic that failed the hurdle of NOTNEWS would not become acceptable merely by the passage of time. It would need to demonstrate that it had ongoing coverage. So in this case, you'd need to show that people are still talking about and discussing this crash seven years later. If I've overlooked a source that shows that, please correct me. - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• It doesn't have to be continuing coverage up until right now at this very second. It has to be coverage that happened a significant time after the accident. The coverage from 2005 would meet that requirement. Silverseren^C 10:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• The "2005 coverage" is (a watchdog blog summarising and re-posting) a report produced by a government instrumentality responding directly to the initial crash. This is routine coverage; a similar document is produced in respect of every aviation incident. It's not evidence of ongoing discussion and significance. - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Aviation Week & Space Technology is a watchdog blog? Silverseren^C 10:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• No, I was referring to the Aviation Safety Network, and this link to them from the article. What were you referring to? We might be at cross purposes! - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• I was referring to the second reference in the article, this. Silverseren^C 10:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, no, I see, sorry. No, that article, like Aviation Safety Network, is just responding to the release of the government report in that week. It's a routine part of any aviation event, and the chronological distance from the event is only due to the government taking so long to complete the inquiry. It's much the same as in the death of a non-notable individual, where the deceased's estate may take years after their death to finalise, resulting in the eventual public publication of a court grant of probate, but doesn't go to show the enduring historical significance of the deceased. - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment It appears that both DustFormsWords and Mukkakukaku wish to argue every point and counter-point raised. I've given my reasons as to why I believe the event is notable, and will not make any further contribution to this debate unless asked a direct question. Mjroots (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually I only intended to clarify my original nomination wrt points being brought up; I've fixed the indentation on the previous comment. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 10:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Air crashes often attract enough coverage to seem superficially to satisfy the WP:GNG. However, in my view, they generally fail WP:EVENT, specifically WP:EFFECT, WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:PERSISTENCE. This one is no exception.--Korruski^Talk 11:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. The NTSB reports are clearly sufficiently RS to support fixing the article. The problem identified in FAA Order 8400 is clearly of ongoing significance. (Has the FAA corrected it yet?) Just one time, I wish I could see evidence that everyone arguing for deletion has made some kind of effort to improve the article discussed before doing so.LeadSongDog come howl! 14:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. This fails EVENT pretty comprehensively, per the nom and others. It's pretty pointless claiming the ASN is WP:N-worthy evidence of notability, their mission is to cover the industry, and as such, they cover everything and anything aircrash related, irrespective of real world notability (and the sole outside source they list for their 'narrative' coverage of this crash is...the NTSB report). And on that score, it is completely invalid to claim the NTSB report is WP:N worthy evidence, they report on all crashes irrespective of historical notability, it's their legal function, and as such it is arguably a non-independent WP:PRIMARY source for the purposes of WP:N (although bizarrely, there are people out there who argue it is a secondary source just like any other peer reviewed research paper!). The 2008 Bangash book, provided as a general reference, appears to be completely irrelevant as regards WP:N, as it only lists this crash as part of a list of crashes, without any accompanying commentary or analysis that I can see - this is practically the definition of a passing mention for the purposes of WP:N. If further analysis in there exists, more page numbers would be useful. The only remotely relevant source presented to support the claim that this was a noteworthy crash with lasting, noted and noteworthy effects (again, a common fallacy in these Afds is that if it is not afforded a whole article on Wikipedia, we are not 'covering' it - which is pure nonsense), is the Aviation Week & Space Technology piece. But that should be seen in the context that it is in effect a trade journal, and it is simply summarizing the contents of the report at the time it was published, as any other topic specific news organisation would. If that's it, it's not convincing in terms of meeting EVENT, not if people accept that Wikipedia is a general reference work which only dedicates whole articles to truly notable aspects of specific fields, rather than arguing it is simply one part of the general Aviation information and research body of historical record (as many people frequently argue, against our mission). If there is any further evidence out there in the form of reliable Wikipedia suitable secondary sources, that assert with their in-depth and detailed coverage of this incident that they consider this crash a defining moment in the training and regulation of the aviation industry, rather than the rather underwhelming reception of the recommendations detailed in this report, then I'd more than happily review them wrt to my vote, but they certainly do not appear to have been found yet to justify any of the claims being made in this Afd from the keep viewpoint with regards to historical impact. Given that the report came out in May 2005, and it happened in America, there can be no excuse for anybody failing to provide this sort of evidence, as the excuses for failing to do that in other Afds such as incidents occuring before the internet age, or occuring in a WP:CSB prone country, or for being too recent to judge lasting effects so 'keep for now' (not that this has ever been policy), are completely irrelevant here. It should be noted that while this is not one of the many such articles created based on the immediate news coverage, which has made any Afd debate completely pointless with regards to EFFECT, the sole source used for the article's state at creation appears to have been the NTSB report, and in terms of asserting notability, it's hard to see how it has really been developed in that regard. The only current development spurred by this Afd appears to be just adding more of the report's detail. MickMacNee (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - The accident may not have killed anybody, but the investigation reports by the NTSB and the follow-up reports in the aviation press indicate that it identified some serious safety issues with lasting implications for the aviation industry. Regarding the accident severity, there were injuries, and if there had been more than seven people on the plane (or if the people on the plane hadn't been trained pilots), there likely would have been fatalities. Remember that Wikipedia is not a print encyclopedia -- this might not get an article in a print encyclopedia, but it is plenty significant enough in the world of aviation to merit inclusion here. --Orlady (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

  Reports? Plural? There is only one report here that can be described as the 'Aviation Press' in the conventional sense, the Aviation Week & Space Technology piece. The ASN does have print publications, but the 'report' referenced here is their database entry. And both of these sources have clearly done nothing more than use the NTSB as their only source - their coverage contains no in depth reporting and no further analysis. There is nothing in their mere existence to support your claim it was 'plenty significant enough' for the Aviation industry, unless you are under the (wrong) assumption that for example, the ASN doesn't create entries for every crash, or publications like AWST would not normally report on the publication of final reports of all incidents of this size in exactly this way. As for their actual contents, I'd say it's pretty underwhelming as far as evidence of significance goes. WP:OR aside, if you really want to claim that these were significant findings or changes for the industry, then one would expect better evidence would have emerged by now, well after the AWST's news report, to support that assertion. The relevance of NOTPAPER is hard to see, it's not like EVENT was written for a paper encyclopoedia. MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note. The closer should be aware that in addition to the Project notifications above, this Afd was also brought to the attention of the Article Rescue Squadron in this note. MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. I find it honestly bizzare to see the article described as a biography of an aircraft. And also in the various air-crash AfD's I've seen, no matter how acrimonious the debate got (and it gets pretty nasty sometimes!), WP:EVENT has never been brought up. WP:AIRCRASH may be a "project-level essay", but it is still the standard used for the evaluation of aircraft-crash articles to determine if they should be deleted on grounds of notability. In addition, invoking WP:NOTNEWS on an event that occured in 2003, and didn't have an article created until 2006, is, IMHO, picayune and stretching the definition of "not news" considerably (is something still "news" three years after the event? How about seven years?). It should also be noted that the crash and its NTSB report are cited in books published in 2008 ([1], [2]) and 2009 ([3]) - thus demonstrating 'continued coverage'.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

  EVENT has always been part of AIRCRASH, both the old version, and the new one, which effectively simply says - to have an article, it must meet the GNG, EVENT and NOTNEWS. It cannot be more clearer than that that EVENT is relevant to aircrashes. And I don't see what coverage you are claiming from those book refs. #1 was already in the article, and consists of a single list entry it seems. #2 obviously used it as a ref for it's contents, but how? why? #3 is not even displaying for me, so I cannot see what you are calling coverage there. We definitely need more info than just bare links to assess those. MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)