Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Pushing forward: consensus achieved!
Line 276: Line 276:


::::Dont have a problem with that. [[User:MilborneOne|MilborneOne]] ([[User talk:MilborneOne|talk]]) 19:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
::::Dont have a problem with that. [[User:MilborneOne|MilborneOne]] ([[User talk:MilborneOne|talk]]) 19:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

:::::Okay it has now been two weeks without objection to that proposal so I believe that makes it an accepted guideline! I will action that. - [[User:Ahunt|Ahunt]] ([[User talk:Ahunt|talk]]) 23:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


==Examples==
==Examples==

Revision as of 23:15, 9 December 2010

Initial Comments

I like the idea behind these guidelines - the complexity of the ones I primarily authored appears to have been generally unliked. However, the wording on this draft needs much improvement and the focus is unclear on some of the points. Here is my suggested improvement as a starter for discussion (italics and strike through are used to highlight changes only):

Definitions
  • "Accident" means any unplanned occurrence that results in serious injury, and loss of life, or significant structural damage to an aircraft.
  • "Incident" means any other occurrence that is not a routine part of aircraft operation, including deliberate sabotage and acts of terrorism.
Principles
  • Most accidents and incidents are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article. The occurrences below are a guide to help determine which accidents and incidents are notable and which are not.
  • Some accidents and incidents are notable only or primarily in the context of other factors (e.g. operator, location, other accidents/incidents, individual passengers, etc). Most of these are best covered in an article together with this context.
  • News coverage is not an indicator of notability on its own.
  • One or more official reports are produced for almost every accident and incident, thus the existence of a report about or investigation into an event is not an indicator of notability, regardless of which organisation(s) investigate/report. Conversely, the lack of an investigation is generally a good indicator that the event was not notable.
Accidents Guidelines

Any unplanned occurrence that results in serious injury or loss of life is an accident by definition.

  • Most accidents and incidents are probably notable if they that have an enduring historical significance or have lasting effects are notable. Accidents/incidents that have such significance are more likely to be notable than those that don't.
  • Accidents/incidents that involve unusual circumstances are more likely to be notable than those that do not
  • It is likely that only accidents that involve commercial aircraft on international flights are probably notable but they must have an enduring historical significance or have lasting effects.
  • Accidents that involve commercial aircraft on international flights are more likely to be notable than those that do not.
  • Accidents and incidents that involve, commercial aircraft on domestic flights, business, military and/or private aircraft are unlikely to be notable unless one or more of the victims were notable before the accident/incident, or it involved unusual circumstances. Any accident/incident that is not notable enough to be mentioned on a biographical article about an involved person is unlikely to be notable enough for its own article.
  • Accidents to military aircraft are unlikely to be notable unless one or more of the victims was/were notable before the accident. Military aircraft accidents and incidents that involve fatal injury to civilians or involved unusual circumstances may be notable.
  • Military aircraft accidents or incidents on training flights are unlikely to be notable unless there were very unusual circumstances
  • Accidents or incidents involving military aircraft that occur in war zones, other areas of conflict, and/or peace keeping areas are unlikely to be individually notable unless there were very unusual circumstances, the cause was unrelated to the conflict or the event has a lasting historical significance.

;Incidents Most incidents are probably notable if they have an enduring historical significance or have lasting effects.

  • It is likely that only Incidents that involve wide-spread changes to industry or their procedures are probably notable but iff they must have an enduring historical significance or have lasting effects.
  • An incident where aviation professionals are dismissed or severely reprimanded for their related actions may be notable, but this is less likely if there are not also other significant factors.
  • An incident to a commercial aircraft which is the result of military or terrorist action, including hijacking may be notable.

Please do not treat these as anything other than my personal ideas - it is my intention only to start the discussion with these - indeed I dislike hate the phrase "unusual circumstances" as the interpretation of it varied hugely in AfDs when it was last present in the guidelines, e.g. some people were of the opinion that something that happened week in week out somewhere in the world was "unusual" if it hadn't happened in the past few years at the specific airport in question, while others were of the belief that if something similar had happened three times in the previous 10 years on the same continent that it wasn't "unusual". My person opinion is that it should be somewhere between the two, but closer to the latter interpretation than the former. I haven't been able to come up with a better phrase though, but hopefully my addition of the phrase "most accidents and incidents are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article" will go some way towards clarifying the intent.

While I have tried to keep this simple, I have only partially succeeded - indeed I've made some bits more complicated. I have not been very active on Wikipedia for many months, and probably will not be much more active in the near future, so I am out of touch with how things are working day to day. Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input Thryduulf, and your past efforts have been appreciated. When the current guideline is being used by both sides in discussions and I fear it is over complicated and clearly does not always match the view from the AfDs discussion. The idea of this was just to give some simple guidance without to much detail and rely on the general guidelines, so editors using these guideline should rely on addressing the points of the general guideline. I agree about your comment re unusual circumstances and that may be a weak point but the idea would be that the WP:GNG etc should give guideance on that. If we put to much detail in describing unusual circumstances then we may get the but you didnt say this wasnt unusual. A quick read of your draft and I dont have any real objections to your suggestions. If I may I will update the main page to reflect your ideas although I would like to retain the introduction. I still need to announce it at project levels which I will do shortly. Again thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my initial thoughts on this version:

  • You appear to have left out dealing with the mythical 'hull loss' criteria, which rightly or wrongly, many people seem to think is evidence of auto-notability - if it is/isn't/might be, this definitely needs clarifying here. I think it's pretty obvious that Wikipedia is not in the business of documenting every hull loss
  • You need to expand on "unusual circumstances" - I belive this is intended to allow people to say that something like, based on past experience, losing all inflight electrics and still landing, it will likely be historically notable, but not give a free pass to silly sensationalist/newsywow stuff (can't think of an example right now)
  • Good or bad, I don't think if you examine the Afd record you will see much difference between domestic and international accidents, especially crashes
  • Terrorism - 'may' is too weak. I think it's fair to say there has never been a succesfull deletion of a terrorism related air incident simply due to the world's hard-on for all things terroristic (can anyone prove me wrong?)
  • Medals, decorations or honours - the awarding of such to pilots and crew definitely has some relevance here, and could be specifically referred to without turning this guideline into a list of specifics. Again, like you say with dismissals, this is probably not a deal-breaker, but counts in the round
  • Include examples. As ever, it doesn't help to include in each 'may'/'likely' decision area, a couple of examples, one convincingly on each side of the fence.
  • Speculation. Frankly, there are far too many 'ifs/coulds/mights' in current aviation Afd votes. I know it is dealt with elsewhere, but it wouldn't hurt to repeat that principle in here that Wikipedia is not in the business of keeping articles based on speculation

MickMacNee (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mick appreciate your input I agree with all your comments all are valid and we need to address them. The domestic and international is probably covered by the news coverage aspects of EVENT. I will have a think of some appropriate wording for the guideline to meet your concerns and we do need to define unusual circumstances without going into to much details, not sure how at the moment perhaps some examples. MilborneOne (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My own thoughts on aircraft accident notability are at User:Mjroots/Notability of Aircraft Accidents. I still think that the industry-defined weight bands are a good base point. I intend to comment further tomorrow but will say here that I don't think domestic flights are less notable than international flights, nor are cargo flights vastly less notable than passenger flights. Mjroots (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My detailed response -

Factors which make it more likely that a stand-alone article can be sustained.

  • The aircraft is in excess of 14,000 kg maximum take-off weight (MTOW), or it is a helicopter in excess of 5,700 kg MTOW and it was of a type introduced in 1960 or later (pre 1960 introductions covered elsewhere).
  • There were at least 10 deaths in total, including ground deaths. However, a lower number or lack of deaths shall not necessarily mean a lack of notability
  • A mid-air collision occurs involving at least one aircraft in excess of 14,000 kg MTOW or a helicopter in excess of 5,700 kg MTOW and there are deaths as a result.
  • An aircraft is hijacked and there are deaths involved.
  • The aircraft is written off
  • At the time of the accident, it is the deadliest for the type, or the country it occurred in.
  • A Wikinotable person is involved (i.e. that person has an article on Wikipedia, or would be notable enough to sustain one should such an article be created)
  • The aircraft was in service with an airline operating on a scheduled or pre-scheduled charter passenger flight, or a scheduled cargo flight.
  • A civilian aircraft is lost as a result of hostile action, whether or not war has been declared.
  • Major changes are introduced to operating practices as a direct result of the accidents
  • An Airworthiness Directive is issued which grounds a particular type of aircraft.
  • A person involved in the operation of the aircraft (whether in the air or on the ground) is convicted of a criminal offence as a result of the accident.


Factors which make it more likely that the accident should generally be dealt with as a section of an article (aircraft / operator / airport as applicable) or in a list of aircraft crashes by type of aircraft

  • The accident involves an aircraft in excess of 5,700 kg MTOW, or a helicopter in excess of 2,000 kg MTOW
  • There has been an uncontained engine failure which results in injuries to passengers, or severe control difficulties for the crew.
  • The aircraft suffers substantial damage, but is not a hull loss
  • The aircraft was on a training, test, or ferry flight
  • A number of aircraft are voluntarily grounded as a result of the accident
  • A military aircraft in excess of 5,700 kg MTOW or military helicopter in excess of 2,000 kg MTOW is lost during a peacetime accident whether on operations or training.
  • A hijacking occurrs which does not result in a death.

Factors which make it more likely that the accident is not generally notable enough to be covered on Wikipedia

  • The accident involves a General Aviation aircraft.
  • The accident involves an aircraft under 5,700 kg MTOW or a helicopter under 2,000 KG MTOW.
  • The aircraft was operating a MEDEVAC, ad hoc charter or private flight
  • The aircraft was lost as a result of military combat in time of war.

Other factors which increase the likelihood of notability:

  • The aircraft involved was of a type introuced before 1960 and carred 10 or more passengers, or of an equivalent size if a cargo aircraft or of a type introduced before 1940 and carried 4 or more passengers or was of a type introduced before 1920 and carried 2 or more passengers.

There may be other circumstances that move an individual accident up or down a band. For example, the worst accident in Cuba killed 171 people, but there is little information available on the 'net, so it is covered under the article on the aircraft type and airport it happened at (but not, at time of writing, on the article on the airline involved). Preserved ex-military aircraft ("warbirds") should be treated by weight band as above, regardless of age. Generally, accidents involving these would not justify a stand-alone article, but may be suitable for inclusion as a section of an article or as part of a list by aircraft type.

As I stated earlier, the weight bands are what the aviation industry uses. I feel that they are as good a basis as any to use for demarkation purposes. Mjroots (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of quick comments on all that has been said on this page -
  • I think mjroot's ideas are generally good, but it's getting to be too complicated and too much like a list of specifics which is the same problem the current guidelines have.
  • I'm not sure either way regarding weight bands, I'll have to think more about this and research them a bit.
  • I agree about domestic vs international, for example a domestic LAX-JFK flight is likely to be a more significant flight than an international Belfast-Dublin flight. Would weight categories help here?
  • Examples are good, which is why I included them in the current guidelines. However with the different focus of these guidelines, I don't think they would work inline. Instead I suggest putting them on a separate page and arranging them by factors there - e.g. "incidents involving terrorism", "incidents where the crew got awards", etc. Combine this with a precedents list - what got kept, what got deleted, what got merged, and give all of them a brief sentence about why they are as they are.
  • Awards, I think this is probably best combined with dismissals as they are both contributory factors to notability but don't mean anything either way on their own. A dismissal and an award for the same flight would be notable I suspect, but other than deliberate sabotage (a significant event in itself) I can't think of any reason why this would happen.
  • The amount of encyclopaedic information available should always be a key factor in whether to have an article or a section. I suspect though that all we need to do here is to reference (in the principles section perhaps) a more general guideline about when to merge and when to split - I presume there is one?
  • I'm against any arbitrary number of injuries/fatalities for notability purposes as there is no magic reason why an accident that killed 9 is less notable than one that killed 10. Equally, a series of three crashes in remote areas in quick succession with the same cause that each killed over 100 people would probably not get an article each, whereas a light aircraft crash over a city that killed the 2 crew and 5 people on the ground would almost certainly get a standalone article. I think we can say though that "in the absence of other factors, an accident that killed a large number of people is generally going to be more notable than one that killed only a few."
  • Regarding hull losses, my view is that an accident/incident resulting in a hull loss is almost never notable enough for an article solely for this reason. In combination with other significant factors it may make an occurrence more notable than a similar event where an aircraft was not written off. Generally, the larger the aircraft involved, the more likely it is to be notable. This doesn't apply to operational losses of military aircraft, including in training, which are rarely notable on their own.
  • Without wishing to get into another list of specifics, it might be worht mentioning that accidents involving experimental aircraft will normally best be covered as a section on the article about the aircraft type.
Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have tweaked the proposal to remove the domestic/international bit, as has been said it is not supported deletion discussion.
  • Not sure about weight banding I dont think it is really relevant and goes back to the scorecard approach which is not working.
  • I like the idea of examples etc being in a seperate page it would then not over complicate the guideline with to many specifics.
  • I have added the awards bit into the dismissal section to see how it looks.
  • Although originally a supporter of the number of deaths levels I think it just becomes part of the scorecard approach and is not needed.
  • Not really sure about the article/section with size if it has a large amount of info it is likely to trigger one of the notability criteria.
  • I not sure that hull losses needs a mention as a hull loss on its own is not really notable for an article.
  • Take the point about experimental a/c it might be worth a mention.
  • Do we need to define unusual circumstances ? or is it something that needs to meet the general guidelines.

Please remember that the idea of the new approach was to keep it simple and change the emphasis towards the general guidelines. Thanks for the comments. MilborneOne (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having read though the proposal and this talk page I have to agree with the concerns brought up by User:MickMacNee. I have to add to that that I think that if we are going to have specific criteria for notability of stand-alone accident articles over and above WP:N then it really ought to be extremely specific, with hard cut-offs for notability as we have at WP:AIRCRASH-SECTION. Statements like "Commercial aircraft accidents are more likely to be notable than those that are not" are so vague that they will contribute to more squabbling at AfD, rather than less. I also think the guideline should be shorter and more concise. Ultimately any useful guideline should leave very little wiggle room at AfD and most editors who read it should be able to say that "clearly the article is in compliance" or "clear the article is not in compliance". If there is agreement that something more specific is what's needed then I came put something together and post it here for comment. - Ahunt (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any suggestions would be of help particularly as we are looking for a simpler guideline that didnt act like a scorecard but just gave some help to editors, and to support the more general guidelines like WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. Other guidelines provide help with thing like geographical coverage of news and the like which is why the statement is a bit vague as it was trying not to redifine things well covered elsewhere. I did change that particular line recently as it did originally say international flights but it was pointed out that this was not supported by deletion discussions. It would help if any suggestions were changes to this proposal rather than a complete re-write! MilborneOne (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you have hit the crux of the issue. If people are happy with vague and general guidance then I will leave it alone. Personally I would prefer something extremely clear, but if the consensus is to carry on with general guidance then I 'll see what develops here. I remain to be convinced that that approach will help matters at AfD though. This is probably my military background as a staff officer coming though - "clarity, brevity, conciseness". - Ahunt (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the simpler approach. The current AIRCRASH is very specific, but too detailed and confusing, and in some cases contradictory. (See the QF32 AFD for how it's being used to support both the Keep and Delete positions.) - BilCat (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Bill asked ;) here is more like what I would prefer to see:

A commercial, military or light aircraft aircraft crash should have its own article if and only if:

  1. It meets general notability requirements and has sufficient references to support text of at least three paragraphs.

It must also meet at least one of the following criteria:

  1. Involve the death of at least one person notable enough to have their own Wikipedia biography and that biography is not solely due to being killed in an aircraft accident.
  2. Involve the loss of cargo that is dangerous or rare. (i.e. atomic bomb, crown jewels, medical isotopes)
  3. The aircraft hits a place other than an airport, heliport or aerodrome that is notable to have its own article on Wikipedia and that article is not solely because it was involved in the accident.
  4. The accident results in changes to the aircraft design, one or more airworthiness directives, service bulletins or the equivalent for non-certified aircraft, changes to to ATC procedures, aircraft certification criteria, national crash-firefighting-rescue requirements, aviation regulations, national criminal law or equivalent.

All other accidents that do not meet this criteria should be mentioned under the aircraft type article if they meet WP:AIRCRASH-SECTION, in the appropriate person's biography or the article on the place of impact, or the cargo lost.

A careful examination will reveal that this simple criteria takes in just about all the accidents that most people would think are notable and excludes most that aren't, at least I hope so, unless I have missed anything. It also accounts for WP:NOTNEWS, full length books and documentaries, too. Please note this is a first draft so alter as needed. - Ahunt (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, I like the idea but then naturally I would prefer my version! Perhaps an off the wall one paragraph suggestion:

If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article it may be notable enough for a stand-alone article if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports.

Or is that too simple! MilborneOne (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the direction there! Perfection is not achieved when there is nothing left to add, perfection is achieved when there is nothing left to take away - Zen expression. The only thing I would add is something like "and there is a sufficient quantity of text to support a stand alone article of 500 words or three paragraphs or...". Let's gather some thoughts on these two proposals and see what other editors have to say. - Ahunt (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure the amount of text is relevant to this guideline, nothing wrong with it being a stub as long as it is notable enough. I will wait for others to comment. MilborneOne (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My main reason for mentioning a length of some sort is if the refs will only result in an article of two or three sentences then it would probably be best to leave it in the aircraft type /airline/airport/biography or other main article. I am open to leaving that out, though. - Ahunt (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary heading

WE don't seem to be getting a lot of attention on this issue, so I thought I would try to relight the debate here. In thinking more about this I have added a section on terrorism and tweaked some wording, see what you think:

A commercial, military or light aircraft aircraft crash should have its own article if and only if:

  1. It meets general notability requirements and has sufficient references to support text of at least three paragraphs.

and it must also meet at least one of the following criteria:

  1. Involve the death of at least one person notable enough to have their own Wikipedia biography and that biography is not solely due to being killed in an aircraft accident.
  2. Involve the loss of cargo that is dangerous or rare. (i.e. atomic bomb, crown jewels, medical isotopes)
  3. The aircraft impacts a place other than an airport, heliport or aerodrome, that is notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia and that article is not solely because it was the location of the crash.
  4. The crash results in changes to the aircraft design, one or more airworthiness directives, service bulletins or the equivalent for non-certified aircraft, changes to to ATC procedures, aircraft certification criteria, national crash-firefighting-rescue requirements, aviation regulations, national criminal law or equivalent.
  5. The aircraft crash due to an act of terrorism.

All other accidents that do not meet this criteria should be mentioned under the aircraft type article if they meet WP:AIRCRASH-SECTION, in the appropriate person's biography or the article on the place of impact, or the cargo lost.

- Ahunt (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still not sure about it should use accident and incidents rather than the crash. If we have no agreement on a new guideline then I propose that when the QF32 AfD has been concluded that we revert to the original guideline that did have agreement. The current AIRCRASH never had a consensus as was only trial. It is a better position then we have now. MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I used the term "crash", because in most flight safety investigation terminology an accident is an unintentional occurrence that results in injuries, death or damage to the aircraft and an incident is an unintentional occurance that does not result in any injuries, death or damage but has the potential to do so. This doesn't account at all for intentional acts like terrorism, war, suicides, etc. At very least if we are going to define these terms we have to do so in a manner that includes intentional and unintentional acts in some way. It is usually quite a stretch to call an act or terrorism an accident. - Ahunt (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current version of AIRCRASH replaced the previous one because there was consensus that the previous one was not working and that it would be better to give the detailed one's a try rather than continue with the "everything involving a commercial aircraft is automatically notable" (paraphrased) version (which never actually had consensus for that version iirc). There is now consensus that the beta testing has revealed another failure. So the only consensus we have is that neither the version 1 nor version 2 criteria work, which is why we're working on version 3 here. My personal opinion is that version 2 is better than version 1 and that reverting to version 1 only to (hopefully) very quickly issue version 3 would help nobody. Thryduulf (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was not suggesting that we dont give up trying to come up with something better (and unexpectedly I rather have the very simple version or the one that is on this project page) but as the "current" version is clearly not working. I have added what I thought was the "original" version at the bottom of this page. Without going through the history I presumed this had consensus as one point in its history? and would do as a temporary fix if QFA32 ever concludes. MilborneOne (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I agree that we were having difficulty gettting the first version approved, but the second one has been a complete disaster. Any reading of the recent AFDs, esecially QF32, will show that. The main problem is that Thryduuf, for all his good intentions, doens't actually participate in the bulk of the AFDs (as far as I can remember/tell), so he has no real idea of what is going on in them, then or now. He's pushing an ideal that doesn't reflect reality.
Again, I believe we should get back to just laying out the WPN policy and WPEVENT guidelines, and then giving some applications on each point as to how they might apply here. Anything else is not going to be accepted, because people are going to question how/why we can say such and such is or isn't notable, as has been questioned in several recent AFDs. MMN is pushing a hard line that any accident/incident that is not completley notable should not have an articel at all, and be darned what anyone else thinks. However, WP:EVENT sazys diffrently,and I think we need to base our guideliens on that. I think we should stick to laying out the 4 criteria in WPEVENT (notable, likely to be notable, likely to be not notable, and not notable). I don't see any other approach as being workable in the current environment in which AFDs are taking place. - BilCat (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which I hoped was the idea of my original suggestion based more on EVENT and tried to use the same sort of language. Perhaps we should use the simple one paragraph idea above which points to other guidelines and then just give some examples based on AfDs. MilborneOne (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Milb1, I know that was your basis, but it appears from the recent AFDs that we have to be more explicit in where the guidelines come from, and why they are that way. I think the QF32 is a perfect example of an incident that was likely to be notable from the beginning, even though many here disagreed with me on that point, and still do. Given the "significant media coverage" it has received, it was clear after a day or to that it was "likely to be notable". Now, it's almost clearly notable. - BilCat (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we can use the simple one liner and get a list of AfDs in last year or two and explain why it was kept or deleted. Anybody know how easy it is to get a list? MilborneOne (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original guidelines were based on an analysis, mostly be AKRadecki and Bloodred Sandman, of the AFD record from a couple years prior to the first version being compilied. We may need to do that again. - BilCat (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahunt's 10th November Suggestion

Try this, reworded:

An event that results in intentional or unintentional damage to a commercial, military or light aircraft should have its own article if and only if:

  1. It meets general notability requirements and has sufficient references to support text of at least three paragraphs.

and it must also meet at least one of the following criteria:

  1. Involve the death of at least one person notable enough to have their own Wikipedia biography and that biography is not solely due to being killed in an aircraft accident.
  2. Involve the loss of cargo that is dangerous or rare. (i.e. atomic bomb, crown jewels, medical isotopes)
  3. The aircraft impacts a place other than an airport, heliport or aerodrome, that is notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia and that article is not solely because it was the location of the crash.
  4. The occurrence results in changes to the aircraft design, one or more airworthiness directives, service bulletins or the equivalent for non-certified aircraft, changes to to ATC procedures, aircraft certification criteria, national crash-firefighting-rescue requirements, aviation regulations, national criminal law or equivalent.
  5. The aircraft damage was due to an act of terrorism.

All other occurrences that do not meet this criteria should be mentioned under the aircraft type article if they meet WP:AIRCRASH-SECTION, in the appropriate person's biography or the article on the place of impact, or the cargo lost.

- Ahunt (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought about this is that criterion 3 is pointless. It is a well established principle that all verifiable geographical areas larger than an urban neighbourhood are automatically notable enough for their own articles (and verifiable neighbourhoods can be discussed on the article about the settlement they're part of), so wherever a plane hits it will meet this criteria - even if the crash happening there is the impetus for creating an article about it, it would be notable without the crash.
I also think the last criterion is very poor as it says nothing about terrorists incidents that don't damage planes (most hijackings that don't result in a crash for example), but automatically allows incidents where the plane damage was trivial (arguably even if the only damage was to the upholstery of a single seat).
I think it's important that we make mention of the grouping of related incidents into a single article.
These criteria would probably exclude incidents like British Airways Flight 38 while allowing a standalone article about the crash that killed John Denver (currently a section at John Denver#Death, rephrased slightly this could easily be 5 paragraphs). I think the current status of these incidents as an article and a section is correct.
The cause of this discrepancy is probably the weight placed up on the death of a notable person - two planes crash at the same airport in identical circumstances, one kills nobody except the single passenger (who happened to be notable), the other kills the entire complement of 50 passengers and crew, and a dozen people on the ground (none of whom were notable) and it's only the first that gets an article under these guidelines unless at any point in the many months of investigation an airworthiness directive (or similar) is issued at which point it suddenly becomes notable.
For these reasons, and that we have over many months failed to come up with any definitive definition of what makes one accident notable and another not, that we should accept that there is no definitive definition, just factors that make incidents more or less notable. This is what I was trying to get with my ideas on this page (and using a different approach to get to the same end, with the current version, but that approach didn't work) - guidelines by which participants at individual AfDs to determine based on the circumstances of each incident how best to treat it - no coverage, section or article. Thryduulf (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further thought

An accident shall be automatically notable enough to sustain an artice if an entire book is published devoted solely to that accident or a motion picture film or documentary (including an episode in a series) is made devoted solely to that accident. Mjroots (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about that it as it could mean that this is the only cause of notability, would not an accident/incident be already notable for a book or film or documentary to be written about it? MilborneOne (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It probably would be, but there may be an accident which is not covered on Wikipedia which does get such coverage. I deliberately omitted coverage that does not form a complete book, as the mere mention in a book does not necessarily indicate notability (World Directory of Airliner Crashes, for example). Mjroots (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing forward

We seem to have "run out of gas" on this work, as well as participants. Any suggestions to move this forward? - Ahunt (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like to suggest we just use the one paragraph suggestion above to replace the unloved current version at aircrash for now while we think what to do. MilborneOne (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically which proposal are you thinking of? - Ahunt (talk) 13:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Milb1, do you mean this one:

If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article it may be notable enough for a stand-alone article if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports.

? - BilCat (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a proposal here to consider, just waiting for User:MilborneOne to confirm which one it is! - Ahunt (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sorry should have made it clear that is the one I was proposing. MilborneOne (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While not perfect, I can certainly live with that one - it is a lot clearer and easier to understand than what we have today. - Ahunt (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minor point - not about the words but the AIRCRASH-SECTION link goes to the bit about aircraft articles, the airport and airline ones are slightly different! MilborneOne (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should we stick with one then or detail all three? - Ahunt (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Might help to point the link to all three, we do have a copy of all three at [[1]]. MilborneOne (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can live with that. At least it provides some consistency across the project. - Ahunt (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the info into the page here and re-directed the shortcuts. Not the final solution but will do while we carry on working it out. MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have the consensus to elevate this to something above an essay? The aircraft type portion. for instance, is a guideline. - Ahunt (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how that works! I dont see any reason why it should not. I have only added one sentence to what you say is already a guideline/ MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is just a matter of doing it since we have a consensus here. I would suggest calling it a guideline and moving the page to something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Accident articles or similar. - Ahunt (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dont have a problem with that. MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay it has now been two weeks without objection to that proposal so I believe that makes it an accepted guideline! I will action that. - Ahunt (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

Not sure we really need a subpage for examples. Let's put them here instead. Give your example, and explain why it is notable. Mjroots (talk)

A notable test flight
Not sure that the first hull loss of any type is really notable I would argue that this accident is notable because of the importance of the cause (deep stall) which was an unusal occurence at the time. MilborneOne (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A GA accident notable enough for a section within an article
This one is already adequately covered in WP:AIRCRASH-SECTION. Since that standard seems to be working well I suggest we don't deal with it here and stick to a standard for stand-alone articles. - Ahunt (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. MilborneOne (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier version

An aviation accident or incident is "notable" in Wikipedia terms if:

  • General criteria:
    • It involves unusual circumstances;
    • One or more of the passengers on board are notable; or
    • The aviation professionals are dismissed or severely reprimanded for their related actions.
  • Air carrier criteria:
    • It is an accident which involves a scheduled or charter air carrier. An occurrence that results in serious injury or loss of life is an accident by definition.
    • It is a non-injury incident which materially contributes to a change in industry or aircraft procedures.
    • It is the result of military or terrorist action, including hijacking, against a civilian target.
    • It is the first, deadliest, or most significant accident for a particular airline or aircraft.
  • Military aircraft:
    • Loss of life is not necessarily a valid criterion (due to the nature of military aviation, training crashes resulting in loss of life are not typically notable).
    • It is notable if there are unusual circumstances involved
    • It occurs in the civilian world and causes civilian casualties.
    • It is the first crash of a particular type of aircraft.
  • General aviation/corporate aviation/private aircraft accidents are generally notable only if:
    • Unusual circumstances are involved;
    • Notable people are involved;
    • They result in downstream changes to the industry or procedures; or
    • News coverage continues beyond the immediate time frame of the accident.
  • This was an earlier version that is not that far removed from Ahunts latest. MilborneOne (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    From memory the main problems with this were/are (in decreasing order of importance):
    1. It made every accident/incident involving a scheduled or charter airline notable, even if the only thing that could be said about it was to paraphrase a single paragraph press release by the airline involved. Despite a minority of AfD participants holding this view, there was a widespread consensus that we need to be more selective than this (although how selective has not proven easy to agree).
    2. It is based in large parts on the undefined phrase "unusual circumstances" (see my earlier comments on this)
    3. There is now (I think) a consensus that being the first crash of a particular airliner/aircraft/at a particular location involving a notable person do not, on their own, mean an incident is notable enough for a standalone article. Many (most?) people agree though that they can count towards notability.
    If we can come up with a (temporarily) acceptable solution to these points, particularly the first two, then I think an interim (or longer) set of guidelines can replace the version 2 ones. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are getting somewhere here, in accounting for all the ideas so far put forward. As User:Thryduulf mentions above I agree that the biggest problems with this proposal is that it justifies an article for all airline accidents and that the use of the term "unusual circumstances" is far to vague to take to AfD. Perhaps a list of acceptable "unusual circumstances" would be better than a vague term? This is really what i was trying to capture in my attempts above. - Ahunt (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All this is fine whilst talking about modern (i.e. jet-era) accidents, but we do need to cover pre-1960 accidents in the guideline. In particular, we need to define "airliner", as quite small aircraft in the 1920s were airliners, but aircraft of similar size nowadays are GA aircraft. Mjroots (talk) 08:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aircraft_accidents_and_incidents&oldid=401527770"