Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Notability/Archive 1

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation | Notability
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Thryduulf in topic Revising WP:AIRCRASH - Thryduulf's fourth draft
Archive 1Archive 2

History

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article was [cut] and pasted here. Noted solely to address the requirement for history of the content. It seems to me to be a good idea to do this. LeadSongDog come howl 15:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIRCRASH

Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

Regarding the accident section,

  1. What does "unusual circumstance" mean? A crash is an unusual result from an aircraft flight in that it is expected for aircraft to fly and land, so anything that causes a crash could be construed to be not a normal operating condition or procedure.
  2. If military accidents are not in the purview of the article, why is a supposed list for notability criteria included?

My recommendation is that "unusual circumstance" was well-intended, but instead should be changed to suggest that the crash must be in relation to other events or persons which are notable in their own right. For instance, a crash that results in the death of a notable person, a crash that results from a hijacking, etc. Otherwise, "unusual circumstance" should be construed to refer to the aftermath of a crash, which results in

  • changes to legislation
  • international or national aviation rules and/or military operating procedures
  • modification of the aircraft type or other related aviation equipment
  • positive or negative action taken by officials themselves or towards people involved, for their actions related to the accident (e.g. awards, rewards, resignation, reprimands, terminations, etc.)

Right now, the recommendation is rather vague and abstract, not really much of a guideline, especially in regards to notability. --Born2flie (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we can just loose the line thats says that military aircraft are not part of this discussion as it should be. Perhaps we should also change some of the terms that have been open to various interpretation at AfD, would it not be better to list unusual circumstances rather than leave the door open. General criteria should include as Born2flie suggests changes to legislation or operating procedures, not sure about modification of aircraft or other related equipment, perhaps it should be just be mandatory changes like airworthiness directives. Positive or negative action could be a bit wooly and again open to disagreement, perhaps the e.g. list should be formalised so it is clear what it means. I think when we mention notable people it should be added that notability is measured by the individual having a wikipedia article rather than again being open to interpretation. I think we need a bit to the military about troop transport aircraft and helicopters with a loss of life, perhaps something like.
  • Peacetime military transport and helicopter accidents are notable if they involve a loss of life to occupants other than the flight crew.

Not sure about first crash of a particular type in the military section, I would not have thought that most were not notable for a stand-alone article. Just some thoughts for now. MilborneOne (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thryduulf's draft rewrite

I've spent a bit of time thinking and have come up with this draft of a complete rewrite of the criteria.

A: General criteria:

  1. One or more notable passengers on board are killed or seriously injured
  2. Media coverage continues for three or more days (in uninvolved locations) or five or more days (in involved locations) after all bodies and/or wreckage is recovered or the search is called off. Involved locations are:
    • The country (international flights) or region (domestic flights) of the origin, destination and any via points of the flight
    • The country or region where the accident/incident occurred
    • The country or region of origin of one or more passengers or crew significantly involved.
    • The locality of the plane's design or manufacture if this is thought to be significant to the cause
  3. It involved three or more aircraft
  4. It resulted in the grounding of an entire fleet or type of aircraft
  5. It resulted in the modification of the aircraft type or other related aviation equipment
  6. One or more of the aircrew, maintenance workers, or other professionals involved (including executives) are subject to criminal prosecution, termination (civilians), court martial (military), demotion (military) or discharge (military).
  7. One or more of the aircrew receives a prestigious industry award
  8. One or more people involved receives a prestigious national or international award
  9. It is the result of military or terrorist action, including hijacking, against a civilian target.
  10. It is the subject of detailed coverage in a book, television documentary or other significant work by one or more people not involved in the accident/incident or any subsequent recovery effort or investigation.

B: Commercial aviation:

  1. It results in a permanent change to security procedures at one or more of the air terminals called at or scheduled to be called at by the flight; and/or a permanent or otherwise significant change to security procedures at air terminals not involved in the flight. These changes should involve more than just implementing a previously-defined higher level of security for a short time, e.g. frisking all passengers until the likely cause becomes known
  2. It results in a permanent or otherwise significant change to security procedures at air terminals not involved in the flight. These changes should involve more than just implementing a previously-defined higher level of security for a short time, e.g. frisking all passengers until the likely cause becomes known merged with B1
  3. It directly resulted in changes to legislation, national or international commercial aviation rules
  4. It resulted in the banning or suspension of an airline's entire fleet of one or more aircraft types from the national airspace of another country.
  5. One or more of the aircrew or maintenance workers are subject to termination merged with A6.
  6. It is the first, deadliest, or most significant accident for a particular airline or aircraft.
  7. It is the first, deadliest, or most significant accident at a major airport
  8. The flight number is withdrawn or suspended.

C: Military Aviation

  1. It directly resulted in changes to military operating procedures
  2. It results in ore more of the aircrew or maintenance workers being demoted or discharged merged with A6.
  3. It causes casualties to uninvolved civilians.
  4. It is the deadliest or most significant accident of the nation's airforce
  5. It occurs in peacetime or outside a theatre of conflict and results in a loss of life to occupants other than the flight crew.

D: General aviation/corporate aviation/private aircraft

  1. It directly resulted in changes to legislation, national or international aviation rules
  2. The pilot was a person notable for reasons unrelated to aviation
  3. Approximately 50% or more of the passengers were people notable for reasons unrelated to aviation

E: Non-notability criteria

  1. There is no media coverage outside the regional news area in which the incident occurred and/or the plane took off or was due to land.
  2. News coverage outside the local area of the incident lasts 48 hours or less.
  3. It is an accident/incident at an airport or airfield that does not result in more than a short delay to other flights.
  4. There are no sources that meet the standards at Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
  5. No investigating authority published more than a summary or bulletin of the accident/incident.
  6. It involves an experimental aircraft type

Scoring: Each criterion in sections A-D scores 1 point, each criterion in section E scores -1 point. If the total is:

0 or less it is definitely not notable for inclusion
1 it is probably not notable enough for its own article
2 it will normally only be notable enough for its own if there are at lest several independent reliable sources, and it has a lasting impact on one or more aspects of aviation.
3 it will usually be notable enough for its own article
4 it will almost always be notable enough for its own article
5 or more it is definitely notable enough for its own article

I've numbered the criteria for easy reference, e.g. so you can say something meets criteria A4. The order of sections and of entries in a section has no relevance, the criteria are not ranked. Remember this is a draft and, even though it is largely based on the existing criteria and comments on this page, I would be very surprised if it was acceptable as-is. I would like comments, good and bad, on the criteria, scoring and even the concept. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with a quantitative approach of scoring. Notability should, by nature, be qualitative. I would like to eliminate the grasping-at-straws arguments that occur during AfD discussions with a project guideline that lends itself to greater depth of discussion on the impact of such an event rather than, "It happened and it was covered, therefore it is notable." Towards that end, I also don't agree with a quantifying of length of coverage or the area of coverage. As I stated in one AfD discussion recently, inclusion outside of a region is more likely to be an editing decision on a slow news day or in the hopes that the event will turn out to be larger than it initially seems. Other than those disagreements, I'm agreeable to MillebornOne's suggestions and Thryduulf's lettering/numbering and expansion of the General/Military/Commercial/Civilian criteria. --Born2flie (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I like the expansion of the criteria, especially the sectioning/numbering. However, I think the counting would be too confusing, and, as Born pointed out in different words, too arbitrary, though it is an iteresting idea. - BilCat (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't thought about the slow news day factor, but if significant coverage lasts only a day or two then it is likely to be less notable than one where it continues for a week after it's all been recovered. Can you think of a different way to phrase it?
Re the counting, yeah I see what you mean, do you think it would work without it? My view is that a notable accident will easily meet two or three criteria here, and I don't like the current system where any one hit is good enough. Thryduulf (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
First, what constitutes news coverage? Rehashing of old articles and information because no new information is available but the press wants to keep the interest in the event piqued, or is there new information being revealed/discovered that adds to the picture of what happened. Second, what is the definition of a region? Some news sources consider larger geographic areas as their region as compared to others.
I personally think that defining notability by the amount or quality of media coverage is like trying to transfer water from a puddle to a pond by using a sieve. Even WP:RS seems to shy away from qualifying exactly what type of media coverage would be acceptable and what type would not. I think that the more robust criteria for a project guideline will drive the issue of news sources by itself, without necessarily having to spell out a time limit or the spread of the press coverage. The news items that may be chosen by an editor as a source will have to support the criteria, or else the quality of notability will not be established by even the most reliable news organization sources. --Born2flie (talk) 09:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Not sure I like using the media coverage as a general criteria, it should be just as support other notability. Not sure I like the adding up scores it may be open to game play during AfD. The accident should be notable if it meets the criteria supported by media coverage not because of it. I like Thryduulf's numbering idea although I am not sure about some of the criteria. The criteria should be cut and dry and not open to endless debate if possible. I have an idea for a general criteria which I will call A11 as not to confuse:
  • A11 - Any fatal accident to an aircraft with ten or more passengers.
  • A1 - Still think A1 should have make the notability that notability is measured by having a wikipedia article.
  • A2 - Dont think we need A2
  • A3 - Dont think we need A3
  • A4 - Not sure about this one either - it is normal practice in the military to ground aircraft pending an investigation.
  • A5 - Again a bit open ended - needs a Airworthiness Directive or similar to be notable.
  • A6 - Again a bit of an open criteria if the accident is already notable not sure it is needed.
  • A7 - OK
  • A8 - Could be combined with A7
  • A9 - Needs to be made clear this should only involve aircraft in flight
  • A10 - Not sure A10 on its own would qualify as notable for an article on the accident. Some TV documentaries have scraped the barrel to fill programmes with non-notable incidents.
  • B1 - Dont like this one - not sure an incident would be notable, is this meant to cover the fence jumpers and the like?
  • B3 - OK
  • B4 - Dont like this one - aircraft have been banned for having flat tyres! sorry bad maintenance.
  • B6 - I think the wording needs to be tightened up - is the first loss of a Cessna 150 notable!
  • B7 - The first accident may not be otherwise particularly notable.
  • B8 - Dont like this one not really a measure of notability
  • C1 - Probably a bit vague
  • C3 - OK
  • C4 - Probably OK but you could end of with a training aircraft crash in a small nation!
  • C5 - OK

Note that my suggested A11 (ten or more passengers would also cover military transports and helicopters)

  • D1 - OK
  • D2 - this could be covered by A1 as we shouldnt really discount aviators who subsequently die in a general aviation accident after notable history as a military pilot etc.
  • D3 - Again they are either notable with their own article or they are not.
  • E1-6 - Not sure I like any of these all a bit wooly, I will think about non-notability.

Some good suggestions I am sure between us we can work out a reasonable set of criteria. MilborneOne (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding notability, I think a general "definitions" section would be good where we define "notable" as meaning they have their own Wikipedia article; and we define what we mean by "commercial" aviation, etc.
Regarding media sources, I know that local news areas cover different geographical sizes, and if we use media coverage as a criterion I think this works better than a strict geographical size, as in remote areas notability for local news covers a wider area than in urban areas. For example an light aircraft air crash with no fatalities on an unpopulated hillside 30 miles away from the offices of the newspaper will be far more likely to be considered local news in the Scottish Highlands than in London. I take your point though that we might not want any such criteria, and maybe we should just say that everything has to be backed up by independent reliable sources with a note that (some) editors are likely to place more weight on sources outside from outside the region than on local newspapers.
re your A11, I'm not sure that would be necessary as a general criterion but if we merge it with my B6 to produce "It is the first, deadliest or most significant accident for a particular airline, or a particular aircraft with a maximum passenger capacity of 10 or more". Or alternately maybe we should say that the commercial aviation criteria apply only to aircraft capable of carrying 10 or more passengers (but note that I'm not suggesting all aircraft of this size should be treated as commercial aviation, as general aviation planes can be larger, just that commercial aircraft smaller than this should be subject to general aviation critria). I don't like the idea of saying that there must be X number of fatalities or injuries for it to be notable.
re A3, my thoughts are that an accident involving three or more aircraft is quite likely to be notable and in a scoring system it would be easy points for that type of accident. Maybe it isn't needed in a non-scoring system.
re A4, if the military routinely ground the entire fleet (I don't know) then this would be better as a criteria specifically for commercial aviation where it is not routine.
re A5, OK, I agree with that.
re A6, again this was a scoring system driven thing. Originally I just had it as criminal prosecution, but combined it with the others as someone who is prosecuted is also likely to be dismissed and thus two points would be got for essentially the same event. I still think that "One or more of the aircrew, maintenance workers, or other professionals involved (including executives) are subject to criminal prosecution or military discharge" would work. Thoughts?
re A7 and A8, yes they could be combined. How would we phrase it to cover pilots getting an industry award and a passenger getting an award for heroism in saving lots of other passengers lives?
re A9, agreed.
re A10 hmm, yeah. The idea is that notable accidents are ones that meet at least two or three criteria rather than just a single one. Can you think of any ways to tighten this up? Being the subject of a detailed book or documentary about the accident does seem good if we can exclude scraping-the-barrelness. Perhaps excluding ones that deal only with the human interest? Perhaps we should say that if this is the only reason it is notable (i.e. it doesn't meet other criteria) then we should just have a redirect to an article about the book, etc, (assuming the book meets the relevant notability criteria, and explicitly saying these criteria do not contribute to or imply any notability for the book)?
re B1. It is not meant to cover fencejumpers or things like that, but to catch things like the shoebomber, and other flights where occurrences have lead to a significant change in the rules. Perhaps specifying that it needs to be an incident in the air?
re B4 again perhaps specifying that it was an in-air incident or accident would help?
re B6 see also above. I agree this needs to be tightened up - would specifying a minimum size of plane help? I don't want to exclude old accidents involving aircraft that were large for their time but would be small today.
re B7 should this then just be "the deadliest or most significant accident at a major airport"? Again if the only reason it is notable is that it is the first accident at an airport, then that wouldn't be enough on its own under this scheme. Also, I don't want the situation where an accident is deemed notable (partly) as being the deadliest at a given airport, only for it to be deleted when a deadlier accident happens five years later.
re B8, are there notable incidents where the flight number is not withdrawn or non-notable incidents where it is wrthdrawn? If the answer is that either happens more than just occasionally, then it should probably just be removed as a criterion. My thoughts were that it would be a point scorable by significant incidents/accidents but not by minor ones.
re C1 - can you think of a way of tightening it up?
re C4 - hmm, specifically excluding training aircraft from this criteria and/or making "it involved only training aircraft" a general non-notability criteria (see also below) would stop that. However, incidents with training aircraft can be notable, e.g. the incident on 11 February 2009 and I don't want to exclude them. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
re D2, ok agreed.
re D3, if you are suggesting this is changed to just "Approximately 50% or more of the passengers were people notable" then yes I agree.
re Non-notability criteria. The idea behind these is that if something meets only these criteria and none in A-D, then it is clearly not a notable incident. If it meets some in E and some in A-D then it is less likely to be notable than accidents/incidents that don't meet any in E, although it could still be notable. It does have some weaknesses though - e.g. I'd say that something meting C3 and E6 would be just as notable as something meeting only C3 (whether it is notable enough is a different matter), but something meeting D3 and E5 is unlikely to be notable. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that, just a note I didnt think the Grob training incident was notable just WP:NEWS a lot of RAF training aircraft have crashed over the years and a few of the Chipmunk crashes would fall in the same category (that is fatal accidents carrying cadets). I will wait for others to comment before I reply again although I suspect we may have some we can agree on and some need a bit more discussion and consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thryduulf's second draft

As discussion on the first draft has gone quiet, I've taken the comments on board and produced a second draft. I am not anticipating that this will be the final version, but I am hoping it generates more comment. Particularly I think the definitions may be a bit too complicated/wordy and that labelling sections E and F "non-notability criteria" and "non-criteria" may lead to confusion - suggestions for better names more than welcome! Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitions:

  • These guidelines apply to accidents and incidents as defined at Aviation accidents and incidents.
  • General criteria, non-notability criteria and non-criteria apply to all categories of aviation
  • Commercial aviation criteria apply to commercial flights made by aircraft with a passenger capacity of at less than 10 people only in exceptional circumstances.
  • Military aviation criteria apply to all flights and aircraft operated by military organisations, to flights operated by other organisations on behalf of a military organisation, and flights solely for the purpose of transporting members of one or more military organisations.
  • General aviation criteria apply to all other flights.
  • A notable person is someone who has their own Wikipedia article
  • A notbale group is one that has its own Wikipedia article
  • Significant media coverage means stories that include new factual information and/or new news releases from involved organisations or investigation authorities. Human interest stories, reruns of earlier reports with little additional or different material, additional speculation without additional facts, digest/editorial pieces, comments/letters, etc from uninvolved people and general articles about air safety or involved organisations are explicitly excluded.
  • Involved locations are
    • The country (international flights) or region (domestic flights) of the origin, destination and any via points of the flight
    • The country or region where the accident/incident occurred
    • The country or region of origin of one or more passengers or crew significantly involved
    • The locality of the plane's design or manufacture if this is thought to be significant to the cause
  • Involved organisations are
    • The flight operator (e.g. the airline or military branch)
    • The employer(s) of the flight crew
    • The owner, operator and maintainer(s) of the plane
    • The organiser of the flight (e.g. the tour operator who chartered the aircraft)
    • The manufacturer of the aircraft.
  • An involved person is someone who
    • Was a member of the flight crew
    • was a passenger acting as if they were a member of the flight crew
    • Took action directly related to the incident (e.g. a hijacker, bomber, etc)
    • Contributed very significantly to the rescue effort
  • "Airport" includes airfields, heliports and other similar locations.

A: General criteria:

  1. One or more notable people, or a significant proportion of a notable group of people, are killed or seriously injured. If a single notable person or group are the only people (significantly) involved, and this is the only criteria matched, a redirect to the relevant person or group may be more appropriate.
  2. Significant media coverage in uninvolved areas continues for several days after all bodies and/or wreckage is recovered or the search is called off.
  3. It resulted in one or more official bodies issuing an Airworthiness Directive or similar.
  4. One or more of the aircrew, maintenance workers, or other professionals involved (including executives) are subject to criminal prosecution or military discharge.
  5. One or more of the people involved receives a prestigious national, international or industry award for their actions directly related to the accident/incident.
  6. It is the result of military or terrorist action, including hijacking, against a civilian aircraft in flight.

B: Commercial aviation:

  1. An in-flight accident/incident results in a permanent change to security procedures at one or more of the air terminals called at or scheduled to be called at by the flight; and/or a permanent or otherwise significant change to security procedures at air terminals not involved in the flight. These changes should involve more than just implementing a previously-defined higher level of security for a short time, e.g. frisking all passengers until the likely cause becomes known
  2. It directly resulted in changes to legislation, national or international commercial aviation rules
  3. An in-flight accident/incident directly resulted in the banning or suspension of an airline's entire fleet of one or more aircraft types from the national airspace of another country. If this is the only criteria matched, a redirect to the article about the airline may be more appropriate.
  4. It is the first, deadliest, or most significant accident for a particular airline, aircraft or at a major airport. If this is the only criteria matched, a redirect to the airline, aircraft or airport may be more appropriate.
  5. It resulted in the grounding of an entire fleet or type of aircraft. If this is only criteria matched, a redirect to the article about the aircraft or fleet may be more appropriate.

C: Military Aviation

  1. It directly resulted in changes to military operating procedures. If this is the only criteria matched, inclusion in article discussing the procedures will usually be more appropriate.
  2. It causes casualties to uninvolved civilians.
  3. It is the deadliest or most significant accident of the nation's airforce. If this is the only criteria matched then a redirect to the article about the airforce may be more appropriate, especially if it involved training flights.
  4. It occurs in peacetime or outside a theatre of conflict and results in a loss of life to occupants other than the flight crew.

D: General aviation/corporate aviation/private aircraft

  1. It directly resulted in changes to legislation, national or international aviation rules
  2. The pilot was a notable person. If this is the only criteria matched, then a redirect to the pilot's article will normally be more appropriate
  3. Approximately 50% or more of the people on board were notable. If this is the only criteria matched, and the notable people were a single group (e.g. a sports team), then a redirect to the article about the group may be more appropriate.


E: Non-notability criteria

  1. There is no (independent) media coverage outside the regional news area in which the incident occurred and/or the plane took off or was due to land. If this criteria is met, consider a redirect to another article instead - e.g the airline or the location of the incident.
  2. It is an accident/incident at an airport that does not result in more than a short delay to other flights.
  3. No investigating authority published more than a summary or bulletin of the accident/incident.
  4. It involves an experimental aircraft type. If this criteria is met, consider a redirect to the article about aircraft type instead.
  5. Only aircraft with a passenger capacity of less than 10 people are involved. This excludes military aircraft not designed to carry passengers.

If an event matches criteria in this section, then it is less likely to be notable than events that do not. Events that only match criteria in this section are unlikely to be notable enough for their own article.

F. Non-criteria

  1. A journalist, photographer, blogger, etc covering the event receives an award for their coverage.
  2. It is the subject of detailed coverage in a book, television documentary or other significant work after the event.
  3. A person involved becomes a significant campaigner related to aviation, air safety, etc (for or against).
  4. A person involved subsequently becomes notable for reasons unrelated to the accident/incident.

In all cases, the person or work may or may not be notable enough for their own Wikipedia article as judged by the relevant notability standards for people, books, journalism, etc, but this has no impact on the notability or otherwise of the accident/incident. Nor should the notability or otherwise of the event be used as a guide to the notability or otherwise of the person/work, unless the relevant guidelines specifically include this as a criteria. If the accident/incident is not notable, but a person or work related to it is, a redirect may be appropriate. If a person or work is notable only because of a notable accident or incident, a section in the article about the event with a redirect there may be appropriate.

Numbering from the first draft has not been preserved, so if you are referring to something from the previous version please make this clear. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

New 10-passenger idea

Latest comment: 15 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion
Thanks to User:Thryduulf fo his had work but I think we are getting a bit over complicated and looking at the way of recent AfDs can I suggest another idea based on more than ten passengers (almost always notable) and less than ten (some doubt in most cases) (also remember that aircraft/airlines/airports already have their own definitions so this is really for stand-alone articles), note if we accept the first definition about the size of aircraft based on passengers then it removes a lot of Thryduulf suggestions but retains some, and removes some AfD arguments:

Notablity of aircaft accidents

Aircraft accidents to aircraft with more than ten passengers are normally notable and should be considered for a stand-alone article if:

  • (A1) They are fatal or hull-loss accidents to aircaft with more then ten passengers.

Aircaft accidents to aircraft with ten or less passengers, or accidents to any aircraft with serious injuries or structural failure may be notable if they meet one or more of the following citeria:

  • (A2) One or more notable people, or a significant proportion of a notable group of people, are killed or seriously injured. If a single notable person or group are the only people (significantly) involved, and this is the only criteria matched, a redirect to the relevant person or group may be more appropriate. (Note a notable person is someone who has their own Wikipedia article, and a notable group is one that has its own Wikipedia article)
  • (A3) It resulted in one or more official bodies issuing an Airworthiness Directive or similar.
  • (A4) It is a military aircaft accident that causes either civilian casualties in the air or ground, or is fatal to occupants other than the flight crew.
  • (A5) It directly resulted in changes to legislation, national or international commercial aviation rules
  • (A6) One or more of the aircrew, maintenance workers, or other professionals involved (including executives) are subject to criminal prosecution or military discharge.
  • (A7 )One or more of the people involved receives a prestigious national, international or industry award for their actions directly related to the accident.

Notability of aircraft incidents

Aircaft incidents are not normally notable and should only be considered for a stand-alone article if they meet one or more of the following criteria:

  • (I1) It is the result of military or terrorist action, including hijacking, against a civilian aircraft in flight.
  • (I2) It directly resulted in changes to legislation, national or international commercial aviation rules.
  • (I3) It resulted in one or more official bodies issuing an Airworthiness Directive or similar.
  • (I4) One or more of the aircrew, maintenance workers, or other professionals involved (including executives) are subject to criminal prosecution or military discharge.
  • (I5) One or more of the people involved receives a prestigious national, international or industry award for their actions directly related to the incident.

In most other cases the accident or incident could be considered for inclusion in the related article for the operator, aircraft or airport but is not notable for a stand-alone article.

So we dont really need the general/commercial/military split but a accident+10,accident-10 and incident. Sorry to propose an alternate idea at this stage but I hope you can give this simpler idea some consideration. MilborneOne (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea of a simpler system - making things too complicated is a common failing of mine. However I don't subscribe to the view that accidents with more than n passengers are always notable, just more likely to be so. Also I don't think that meeting just one of the criteria should be enough, as that sets the bar too low imho - for example just because one member of the aircrew did something illegal but which never put the flight in any danger, does not merit a standalone article. Likewise, just because one notable person was seriously injured (and the other 300 people onboard weren't) does not necessarily mean that the incident is notable - although it would merit a section on that person's article and possibly a redirect. A combination of the two would be more notable, but not (imho) necessarily notable enough on its own, but if it also resulted in a change to maintenance procedures for that type of aircraft then it would be. Generally, 1 criteria is rarely notable enough, 2 can be but usually isn't, 3 usually is notable enough. And as exceedingly minor point, your criteria don't say which category flights with exactly 10 passengers fit into. Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
OK I have tweaked some of the above, more than ten is just fatal or hull loss and I have moved the serious injury and stuctural failure down to the next section. MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
If nobody has any comments can we use WP:SILENCE to change the citeria as above? MilborneOne (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I just noticed this discussion. Generating reply.LeadSongDog come howl 18:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
OK no rush - rather take time to get it right and agreed now than keep revisting it. MilborneOne (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Much of the information we use in generating these articles comes from news coverage that is only freely available for a limited time. It grows terribly wearisome to pour hours into articles only to have someone throw up a drive-by deletion tag without putting any significant effort into improving the article. We need to be clear that some kinds of information (for A3-6 and I2-4) on the above list are not expected to be published until years after the event, even once the official investigation has concluded. (FAA foot-dragging is so chronic that the NTSB maintains a "most wanted" list of actions.) Accordingly, their absence should not be construed to preclude an article for an event within the past decade, though this has routinely happened at AFD discussions. The honest (although unpopular) alternative would be simply to admit that we will not cover recent events. I would propose a much simpler approach. If the responsible investigating agency calls it an accident, we should call it one. If they call it a major incident, we should call it one. Except in a few third-world countries such as the DRC, once an official investigation launches, we should accept that there will, eventually, be a report that will confer notability. Why do we need our own obscure criteria? LeadSongDog come howl 19:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
If you are happy to accept that every commercial, general aviation and military accident is worthy of an article (as large numbers of ga accidents and all military accidents are investigated) and that this could entail thousands of articles on accidents for example to the Piper PA-28. We aleady have users creating pages of combat losses. It all depends on what you you think an encyclopedia should be and what it should cover. MilborneOne (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree that every accident or incident that is investigated is notable, this is one of the reasons for these revised proposals. One of the reasons for my more extensive list (which I still prefer to MilborneOne's version, although I don't think that they're suitable to go live yet) is so that we aren't hamstrung into waiting for official action that may take years - notable accidents will meet other criteria, while non-notable ones will fail to meet enough criteria no matter how long we wait. I'll put up another draft taking into account these comments, probably tomorrow. Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that Thryduulf, I am sure we have some common ground already and it is just a matter of narrowing the gaps through discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Elsewhere on WP, we usually observe WP:N and WP:V. Too many articles doesn't really strike me as a problem, provided we have reliable content in them. WP:NOT#PAPER and all that. If an accident article remains a stub for a few years, then gets merged into an airline, airport or aircraft article, it still is valid content. Still, my intent wasn't really that we cover every major incident in general aviation or military training. I confess that I had commercial carriers in mind when I was writing, but the real point was to get off the treadmill of writing things only to see them deleted.LeadSongDog come howl 20:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
It just concerns me of the tens of thousands of potential articles that could be created if being an official accident was used. I understand your concern about work put into articles that are then deleted which is one of the reasons why we wanted a better guideline to help editors. One of the reasons for my suggestion to make every fatal or hull loss accident with aircraft over ten passengers was to lighten the load at AfD as a lot of accident articles are in that category and are regularly challenged and as you say no reason why they cant be stubs. As I have said before it is the ga and military accidents that may cause problems with the sheer number of events invloved. MilborneOne (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I want to thank Thryduulf and MilborneOne for their extensive work and thought put into this effort; as recent AfD’s have shown, it’s been much needed. I’ve been out of town on travel, so I’m just coming to this (and am still absorbing all the prior commentary), and I hope you will all excuse my Johnny-come-lately comments, suggestions and questions.
First, as a general observation, I think MilborneOne’s condensation of Thryduulf’s comprehensive and well-thought-out qualifications will be more user-friendly. It may need to be expanded a bit to further encompass points made by Thryduulf and LeadSongDog, but it’s probably pretty close to what we need lengthwise and detail-wise to avoid making general editors’ eyes glaze over. The current debate seems to me to be “finetuning” over what needs to be included or excluded, which suggests a consensus is close.
AM1) I think the next step needs to be closer consideration of what truly makes one of these articles notable vs. non-notable – that is, what is the fundamental difference between what should consistently survive AfDs and what should not. The aforementioned rules outline it pretty well, but is there a succinct and pithy way we capture a suitable philosophy that is readily comprehensible to the average editor? For example, in a recent AfD, I commented that I thought the summary from Wikipedia:News articles offered a good insight into to clarify when an article of this type fits the standard of being "notable" news rather than "just" news (and thus more suitable for WikiNews): "Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact." This might be a starting place for a good “nutshell” summary statement.
AM2) If news coverage is to be a yardstick for notability, then we probably need to explain the “slow news day” phenomenon and that the same newswire story appearing in multiple publications does not equal multiple sources. This seems to me to be a problem with many AfDs. How we qualify media coverage (hopefully in a simple way) may go a long way to redressing this problem.
AM3) The concept of some A/Is meriting a section on that person's article and possibly a redirect, as opposed to a standalone article, is one of Thryduulf’s best insights and ought to be pulled to the front matter. Whatever we come up with, this recommendation should be highlighted for a win-win outcome where good work is not summarily lost, but usefully retained in a more suitable location and context. It’s much more encouraging – or at least less discouraging – to editors to know that their efforts weren’t a waste of time.
AM4) I sort of like the “10-PAX” rule. It eliminates a lot of trivial articles, however, it’s also arbitrary. I would prefer that general aviation, corporate aviation and private aircraft accidents (and incidents) be notable only be exception – that is, they are non-notable unless there is condition like those in Thryduulf’s Case D (2nd draft). I also agree that the loss of one or a very few notable persons on a commercial aviation or military flight should not solely by itself make the A/I itself notable. There also needs to be consideration as to whether this should be a “10-occupant” rule (crew and PAX); particularly in the case of meeting a qualification in terms of percentage of casualties or fatalities. Another possibility is to qualify A/Is as notable based on percentage of occupants killed (say, 50% or more).
AM5) General comments on specific items in Thryduulf’s 2nd draft:
A1: I don’t know that I would include “or seriously injured” as a qualifier. This is usually not reported, only killed and total number of people onboard. Sometimes the number “hospitalized” is given, but this is a changing, that dwindles in number as “observation” cases, minor injuries, and those who succumb to their wounds are removed.
A2: This remains too vague and lies at the heart of many AfD debates. It weakly attempts to address the issue of “news” vs. “encyclopedic content” without clarifying either. (Also see my AM1 note.)
A4: This is a very rare occurrence – or at least rarely reported in the media. Perhaps this should be amended to qualify it for only when the legal proceedings and/or outcome were noteworthy themselves.
A6: I would think a terrorist seizure of an aircraft on the ground would be notable; I’m not sure the “in flight” qualification is necessary.
B1: I suspect this would be best addressed in the relevant airport articles or covered by A6 (as MilborneOne does with his I1).
B3: This is rare and, surprisingly, receives little attention in the press other than in the (usually third-world) countries involved. These cases are probably better treated in articles on the operator and relations between the concerned nations.
C2: Does this mean every crash that involves a single civilian casualty is inherently notable? What if it was a CIA operative on an Air America flight? Or is this meant to capture more numerous civilian deaths on the ground from military crashes, particularly at airshows (which are always notable IMO and should be explicitly called out as such).
C3: Given the leniency in rules elsewhere, the limitation of being “the deadliest or most significant accident of the nation's airforce” seems highly restrictive. Is the crash of a lightplane involving the death of a single notable pilot notable, but the second or third largest loss of life in a large air force’s history, involving dozens of deaths, non-notable? Somehow relative scale needs to come into play. Perhaps a rule where the loss of life among occupants and people on the ground exceeds 50% of the nominal number of occupants (just an example). Yes, I understand that such a factor is somewhat arbitrary, but it may be unavoidable for making a subjective decision on a relative matter of scale.
E4: I would suggest that some experimental aircraft crashes are more inherently notable than others. For instance, the loss of an X-plane, with which one is trying to advance the state of the art in aviation technologies and performance capabilities is probably notable, while someone’s backyard homebuilt is not.
I think I’ll end it here as there’s more than enough for fruitful discussion and debate. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Just some quick comments on all that, I'll likely respond more fully when I'm more awake (local time is UTC+1 here). The news coverage issue is the part that still needs the most work, and my first impression of that summary you gave is that it potentially has a lot of relevance here.
The issue of slow news days and verbatim copies of the same newswire content are things that have relevance to far more than air accidents and incidents, and Wikipedia could almost certainly do with WP:NEWSWIRE and WP:SLOWNEWSDAY pages (essays?) or sections of some apropriate page that people can be pointed to. My long bit about human interest stories etc in the definitions section is an attempt (that need refining at least) to counter the slow news day issue.
I hadn't thought about air shows. My initial thought is that fatal accidents (even to just the pilot) air shows are probably almost always notable. Impacts of airshow aircraft into the ground, especially if the pilot ejected, I'd say would be notable when they also met on other cirteria (which should be fairly easy I'd think). All comings together between airshow aircraft and crowds likewise. Anything other than that I need to think more about.
I see where you are coming from re your comments on C3, but "one of the most significant..." is just too subjective imo, and I can't come up with anything better at this moment. I'll keep pondering though.
re experimental accidents, my first thoughts are that X planes are notable and any significant incident/accident should be on that article, but that the actual accident/incident wont necessarily be notable outside that context. A hull loss accident that kills many uninvolved civilians would be notable enough for a standalone article, but a non-fatal accident in the middle of the desert caused by pilot error I doubt. Would the first scenario be more notable than if it were a mass produced aircraft (a 737 for example)?. Perhaps we could add "This criteria does not apply to accidents/incidents which meet criterion A0" to E4, where A0 is a criterion that defines what makes a crash of an experimental aircraft more notable as a crash than most.
Do you have any comments about the concept of non-notability criteria and non criteria? Thryduulf (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Re: Airshow accidents. I wouldn't say that they are more notable, simply more witnessed and more sensational than other events. --Born2flie (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thryduulf's third draft

Principles

  • These criteria are a guide to the notability of aviation accidents and incidents as defined at Aviation accidents and incidents. The more criteria from sections A-D that are met, the more likely it is to be notable - generally events which meet several criteria are notable enough for their own article; events which meet none are unlikely to merit inclusion anywhere on Wikipedia; other events are most likely to be best included as a section in another article.
  • Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability (from Wikipedia:Notability)
  • Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact. (from Wikipedia:News articles
  • Where a single news wire story or press release has been used by several news publications, this should only be counted as a single source in all notability discussions. Likewise, when reporters base their information off other news coverage (for example, "AP reported that ..."), the coverage is only a single source. However, if multiple mainstream news outlets do independent reporting on a single event, this is independent coverage. (from Wikipedia:News articles)
  • Many editors will attach greater weight to primary reporting from organisations based further away from the location of an accident/incident than to reports from local news services.
  • Events which involve a notable subject are not necessarily notable in themselves.
  • Where an event is not independently notable, it [i]may[/i] be appropriate for coverage to be a section on an article about the context it is in, for example the article about the airline, aircraft type, airport, or notable person involved.

Definitions:

  • A notable person or group is one that has their own Wikipedia article
  • "Airport" includes airfields, heliports and other similar locations. It does not include aircraft carriers.

A: General criteria:

  1. One or more notable people, or a significant proportion of a notable group of people, are killed or seriously injured.
    • If a single notable person or group are the only people (significantly) involved, and/or this is the only criteria matched, a redirect to the relevant person or group may be more appropriate.
  2. Coverage by multiple independent media sources continues for several days after the event.
    • Only coverage with significant new material about the accident/incindent counts for this criteria. Human interest stories, correspondence from readers/views, fillers on slow news days and similar articles are explicitly excluded.
  3. It resulted in one or more official bodies issuing an Airworthiness Directive or similar.
  4. One or more of the aircrew, maintenance workers, or other professionals involved (including executives) are subject to criminal prosecution or military discharge.
    • This criteria applies only if the prosecution or discharge is reported in a mainstream publication that does not routinely cover cases at the court or other location where the prosecution or discharge took place.
  5. One or more of the people involved receives a prestigious national, international or industry award for their actions directly related to the accident/incident.
  6. It is the result of military or terrorist action, including hijacking, against a civilian aircraft in flight, or on the ground prior to or following a flight.
    • This criterion applies from when the first person boards the aircraft with the intention of flying on that aircraft until the last person who flew on that aircraft has disembarked.

B: Commercial aviation:

  1. It directly resulted in changes to legislation, national or international commercial aviation rules, including the closing of national airspace to an airline or type of aircraft.
    • If the changes affect only a small number of airports/airlines or aircraft types, and this is the only criteria matched then the topic will usually be better covered on the articles about those airports/airlines/aircraft affected..
    • If the changes are notable enough for their own article, consider a redirect to that article, especially if this is the only criteria matched.
  2. It is the first, deadliest, or most significant accident for a particular airline, aircraft or at a major airport.
    • If this is the only criteria matched, a redirect to the airline, aircraft or airport may be more appropriate.
  3. It resulted in the grounding of an entire fleet or type of aircraft.
    • If this is only criteria matched, a redirect to the article about the aircraft or fleet may be more appropriate.

C: Military Aviation

  1. It directly resulted in changes to military operating procedures.
    • If this is the only criteria matched, inclusion in article discussing the procedures will usually be more appropriate.
  2. It is the deadliest or most significant accident of the nation's airforce. If this is the only criteria matched then a redirect to the article about the airforce may be more appropriate, especially if it involved training flights.
  3. It occurs in peacetime or outside a theatre of conflict and results in a loss of life to occupants other than the flight crew and/or uninvolved civilians.
    • If the number of people killed is small and/or this is the only criteria met, consider a redirect to the article about the airforce or aircraft type.

D: General aviation/corporate aviation/private aircraft

  1. It directly resulted in changes to legislation, national or international aviation rules
    • If the changes are themselves notable, consider a redirect tot that article instead.
  2. The pilot was a notable person.
    • If this is the only criteria matched, then a redirect to the pilot's article will normally be more appropriate
  3. Approximately 50% or more of the people on board were notable.
    • If this is the only criteria matched, and the notable people were a single group (e.g. a sports team), then a redirect to the article about the group may be more appropriate.

E: Non-notability criteria

  1. There is no (or almost no) follow-up coverage after the initial If this criteria is met, consider a redirect to another article instead - e.g the airline or the location of the incident.
  2. It is an accident/incident at an airport that does not result in more than a short delay to other flights.
  3. No investigating authority published more than a summary or bulletin of the accident/incident.
  4. Only aircraft with a passenger capacity of less than 10 people are involved.
    • This criteria excludes military aircraft not designed to carry passengers.
  5. It is an accident or incident involving a military aircraft in a theatre of conflict, during a war, peace keeping mission or other active military operations.
    • Events of this type, especially if they are the result of enemy action, are very rarely notable outside the context of the battle, conflict, peace-keeping mission, etc, and so should normally only comprise a section in an article relevant to that circumstance.
  6. It involves an experimental aircraft type.
    • If this criteria is met, consider a redirect to the article about aircraft type instead.
  7. The accident/incident took place at an airshow.
    • Few accidents/incidents at airshows are notable outside the context of the airshow, so it will normally be most appropriate to redirect to a section on an article about the airshow. If no such article exists, then create an article that is about both airshow and incident, as this is more likely to be sufficiently notable than two separate articles.

If an event matches criteria in this section, then it is less likely to be notable enough for its own article than events that do not. Events that only match one or more of criteria 1-5 in this section are unlikely to be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia.

F. Non-criteria

  1. A journalist, photographer, blogger, etc covering the event receives an award for their coverage.
  2. It is the subject of detailed coverage in a book, television documentary or other significant work after the event.
  3. A person involved becomes a significant campaigner related to aviation, air safety, etc (for or against).
  4. A person involved subsequently becomes notable for reasons unrelated to the accident/incident.

In these cases, the person or work may or may not be notable enough for their own Wikipedia article as judged by the relevant notability standards for people, books, journalism, etc, but this has no impact on the notability or otherwise of the accident/incident. Nor should the notability or otherwise of the event be used as a guide to the notability or otherwise of the person/work, unless the relevant guidelines specifically include this as a criteria.

If the accident/incident is not notable, but a person or work related to it is, a redirect may be appropriate.

If a person or work is notable only because of a notable accident or incident, a section in the article about the event with a redirect there may be appropriate.


These criteria are still not a final version, but probably getting closer. They are probably still a bit verbose and complex in places, but I feel it has been simplified quite a bit. The "principles" section (or part of it) could probably be compressed into a nutshell summary.
Per Askari Mark's comments, C2 (what was C3 in the previous draft) still needs work but I have been unable to come up with better phrasing. I have tried to take into account everything people have said and implement everything I agree with. I've run out of awakeness and brain power now, so I apologise if there is anything I've overlooked.
Once again numbering has not been preserved (sorry), please make it clear if you are referring to previous drafts.

Discussion of non-criteria

I've been trying to read Thryduulf's 3rd draft from the perspective of a non-expert editor. One thing that strikes me is that section F "Non-criteria" doesn't appear to clearly derive from Wikipedia's "first principles"; to wit, it's not altogether clear why all of these items are non-criteria. Could someone involved with the original drafting of this essay provide some guidance on the thinking behind these? And do they still make sense? If so, they need to be explained better. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

They are things that have been used in deletion discussions, for air crashes and similar types of event, as a basis for why the article in question is notable. The section is saying that these criteria are irrelevant to the notability of the event - for example if a journalist wins an award for their coverage of an air crash this has no bearing on whether the crash is notable, even if the journalist or the coverage is notable. Does this answer your question?
If you feel they need to be more clear, then please can you suggest how to go about this. I understand perfectly what I mean, but if others don't then it needs to be better worded and/or explained, but until someone either improves it or helps me understand how to improve it then there isn't anything I can do about it. Thryduulf (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe I understand what you're getting at – basically that notability is not inherited (or "reverse-inherited" in these cases) – but that isn't clear from a statement like F.2. In fact, F.2 outcomes rarely occur following non-notable accidents or incidents; as it reads it would suggest that Lady Be Good should not have its own article. (It was little known until popularized by King Nine Will Not Return) and Sole Survivor.) Askari Mark (Talk) 02:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Rethinking AIRCRASH notability

Latest comment: 15 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

I've been rethinking this whole idea in a more holistic approach to the previously established guideline on aircraft notability. Namely, that an aircraft type is notable, but specific aircraft in that type are not notable outside of certain parameters. The idea that an accident is notable because it happened almost subverts the general notability guideline for aircraft. Considering that this might be true, it strikes me that rather than criteria, maybe a test is needed?

  • Can the accident endure as part of a main article about:
    • the aircraft type? (military or civilian)
    • the carrier? (commercial airline accidents)
    • a notable person involved?

This may be a simpler method and may allow time for news coverage and preferred sources to develop and establish more than just a superficial notability, eventually allowing a stand-alone article to be developed. I think the test would lend itself to combat losses as well. --Born2flie (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly then we are thinking along similar lines. My drafts aim to establish the concept of three levels of notability for aircraft accidents/incidents - (1) not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, (2) Notable enough for a section on another article (e.g. airline, aircraft type, notable person involved, location), but not a standalone article, (3) notable enough for a standalone article. Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm very impressed by the effort going into this, especially Thryduulf's, but I agree that we should endeavour to keep it uncomplicated and let it develop organicaly. Perhaps our habitual entry point to article creation has been backwards. What if, for the marginal cases, we start with simply growing a few paragraphs under an "Accidents and incidents" section of the aircraft, airline, or airport article. If and when sufficient material to justify an article seems to have been developed, spawning of an independent article can be discussed on a talk page or noticeboard first should there be any doubt of its independent notability. There is no WP:N requirement for article sections and there should not be. RS and V suffice for sections. With this approach there would be an established consensus on N prior to spawning and no need for the ugliness of AFD.LeadSongDog come howl 05:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
LeadSongDog, that's where my train of thought is going. --Born2flie (talk) 04:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, when I take that track, it ends up coming back to what's notable. Even A&I sections vary widely in what they include, and they have a tendency to collect anything anybody wants to put in. Are we really wanting to produce lists of every known crash (or at least documented mention of the loss) of an airplane type? We really have to start out with determining what is "encyclopedic" – and thus worthy of inclusion – and that tends to fall upon whether it is "notable"; then we hit the other key thing we must do, which is to differentiate when it's more than "just news" (and best presented in Wikinews). Askari Mark (Talk) 03:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Another point to keep in mind is that the articles tend to be created whether or not they are being covered in a section of another article or not. While a good idea in theory, it depends on other editors following it, which doesn't happen with the guidleines we now have! Is there a foolproof way to prevent articles from being created until the topic is notable enough to stand on its own? I don't think so, which is why we seem to be approching this backwards. In a controled editing environment, it would probably work, but not on an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". - BilCat (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The easiest way to prevent accidental creation of articles and sections is to redirect the article to the section, or have a main article link in the section. This doesn't prevent deliberate duplication, but that can be dealt with in other ways. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I was specifically addressing the deliberate creation of articles. And it is those other ways that is the whole point of the discussions here. - BilCat (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[Unindent] While this discussion goes on can I remove the comment are not in the purview of this discussion. against military aicraft as it is clearly not the case and it is being used to dismiss the criteria for all military accidents. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've never understood its reason for being; military accidents should probably have a different standard for notability, but clearly they are "in the purview". Askari Mark (Talk) 20:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Thryduulf (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Removed, although we still need to carry on with the discussion about the notability standards. MilborneOne (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Pilots

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why isn't there a section on pilots? See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notability_of_pilots for the current discussion. Smallman12q (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably because we havnt had a need for one, as biographical subject we already have WP:NOTABILITY and in particular Wikipedia:Notability (people). Not sure anything special about pilots and aviators that would need a separate guideline. I would also suggest this is a better place for discussion then the village pump. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Revising WP:AIRCRASH - Thryduulf's fourth draft

Latest comment: 15 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

As discussion has gone quiet on this, here is my latest revision. It is still too long, and probably a bit complex in places, but it hopefully explains the reason behind all the criteria so that the letter and spirit leave little or no doubt in debates. The most significant change is the reorganisation from General, military, commerical, etc into common factors. I've also removed the non-notability and non-criteria as they seemed to cause much confusion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Preamble

 
My view on notability.
* Level 1 - subject not worthy of inclusion
* Level 2a - subject worthy of inclusion as part of another article
* Level 2b - subject worthy of inclusion as part of another article, with a redirect
* Level 3 - subject worthy of its own article

Most accidents and incidents are not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, and of those that are only a few should have their own article, the remainder should be part of a larger article (with or without a redirect). The more criteria an article meets, the more likley it is to be notable. Articles that meet criteria in only a single section are less likely to be notable enough for a separate article than those that meet criteria in multiple sections. In all cases where there is a suitable article the accident/incident could be covered in, the presumption should be that it is best covered there unless it would overwhelm the article or there are other reasons for it to be separate.

Principles

  • Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability (from Wikipedia:Notability)
  • Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact. (from Wikipedia:News articles)
  • Where a single news wire story or press release has been used by several news publications, this should only be counted as a single source in all notability discussions. Likewise, when reporters base their information off other news coverage (for example, "AP reported that ..."), the coverage is only a single source. However, if multiple mainstream news outlets do independent reporting on a single event, this is independent coverage. (from Wikipedia:News articles)
  • Many editors will attach greater weight to primary reporting from organisations based further away from the location of an accident/incident than to reports from local news services.
  • Events which involve a notable subject are not necessarily notable in themselves.
  • Where an event is not independently notable, it may be appropriate for coverage to be a section on an article about the context it is in, for example the article about the airline, aircraft type, airport, or notable person involved.

Definitions

  • A notable person or group is one that has their own Wikipedia article.
  • "Airport" includes airfields, heliports and other similar locations. It does not include aircraft carriers.
  • "Significantly involved" relates to a person who played an active part in the incident or its aftermath. A passenger on a flight with engine trouble is not singificantly involved, a passenger who overpowers a hijacker is.
  • "Noteworthiness" and "newsworthiness" are different, lower standards than "notability". A "notable" accident/incident is "noteworthy" and was normally "newsworthy" at the time it happened, but a "noteworthy" accident/incident is not necessarily "notable".

Criteria

Aircraft and airlines (A):

If the accident or incident matches criteria only in this section, then coverage shoould normally be on the article about the aircraft or airline. In the case of operational militiary loses, a separate article will rarely be notable
  1. First, deadliest, or most significant accident for the type (commercial or military aircraft only, including experimental aircraft).
  2. Airworthiness Directives - the accident/incident resulted in one or more official bodies issuing an Airworthiness Directive (AD) or similar
  3. Airline - First, deadliest, or most significant accident for a particular airline
  4. Grounding - An entire type of commerical aircraft is grounded as a result of the accident/incident. This does not apply to military or general aviation, experimental aircraft or where fewer than 10 airworthy examples exist.
    • Example of section:
    • Example of article: American Airlines Flight 191 (also the deadliest single airliner accident on US soil. and deadliest incident at the airport)
  5. Suspension - all or a significant propotion of activities by an airline are suspended, or part or all of their fleet is grounded.
  6. Legislation - the accident/incident directly resulted in changes to legislation, national or international commercial aviation rules, including the closing of national airspace to an airline or type of aircraft. If the changes are themselves notable, then consider covering the incident on that article, particularly in the case of general aviation.

Causes and outcomes (C):

If the accident or incident matches criteria only in this section, then coverage will frequently be most apropriate on the article about the cause.
  1. First, deadliest or otherwise most significant example of a type of accident/incident. Incidents that are classed as routine, lead to no serious injuries and/or of which passengers are unaware are only occasionally worthy of coverage anywhere on Wikipedia.
  2. Military or terrorist action, including hijacking, against civilian aircraft in flight, or on the ground prior to or following a flight. . This criterion applies from when the first person boards the aircraft with the intention of flying on that aircraft until the last person who flew on that aircraft has disembarked.
  3. Series of incidents - If a series of incidents with similar cause or consequence or other common factors occur, then a single article covering all the incidents is usually most apropriate

Location (L):

If the accident or incident matches criteria only in this section, then coverage shoud normally be on the article about the location. In the case of operational militiary loses, a separate article will rarely be notable.
  1. Airshows - incidents are airshows are rarely notable outside the context of the show, so the coverage should normally be combined. See also List of airshow accidents
  2. Airport - It is the first, deadliest, or most significant accident at a major airport.
  3. Country, nation, etc - the deadliest or most significant accident to take place in a country, nation, or major (typically 1st-level) sub-national area. In this context, "country" not be interpreted too strictly, e.g. accidents in Croatia should be treated as being in the same area regardless of whether they happened pre- or post-independence from Yugoslavia. Major bodies of water also come under this criterion
    • Example of section:
    • Example of article: LANSA Flight 502 (deadliest at the time in Peruvian history, also led to the suspension of the airline's operation for 90 days)

Military (M):

If the accident or incident matches criteria only in this section, then coverage should normally be on the article about the airforce, conflict or operation.
  1. Airforce - deadliest or most significant accident of the nation's airforce. Incidents solely involving training flights or which are operational loses during conflict or peacekeeping operations are rarely notable enough for their own article.
  2. Miltary procedures - The accident/incident directly resulted in changes to military operating procedures.
    • Example of section:
    • Example of article:
  3. Peacetime loss of life - An accident/incident in peacetime or outside a theatre of conflict that results in a loss of life to occupants other than the flight crew and/or uninvolved civilians. See also the Airshow criteria in the Location section.

People (P):

If the accident or incident matches criteria only in this section, then coverage should noramlly be on the aritcle about the person or group
  1. Notable person or group - a notable person or group is killed, seriously injured or otherwise significantly involved. A standalone article will normally only be apropriate if more than just the notable person or group is significantly involved.
  2. Awards - one or more of the people involved receives a prestigious national, international or industry award for their actions directly related to the accident/incident.
  3. Criminal prosecution - one or more of the aircrew, maintenance workers, or other professionals involved (including executives) are subject to criminal prosecution or military discharge.
    • Example of section:
    • Example of article: 2001 Japan Airlines mid-air incident (two controllers proescuted, also resulted in Japanese authorities requesting changes in ICAO procedures, had collision not been avoided it would have been the deadliest civil aviation accident)

Discussion of Thryduulf's fourth draft

This is in a separate section to the draft for clarity. Numbering of criteria has not been preserved from previous drafts, so please make it clear if you are referring to a previous one. 18:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment I think that Thryduulf's proposals are excellent, for two reasons: (1) They ensure that information about an airline incident will be preserved somewhere and (2) They set a guideline for what incident merits its own separate article, and what should be mentioned in a section of another page (about the airline, the airport, a type of problem, etc.). The current criteria for inclusion pretty much are an "all or nothing" policy, with a heavy emphasis on the "all" part. By this, I mean that an article about a particular flight is created and the options are (a) maintain a separate article about this flight or (b) erase the article and all the information therein. Because we want information preserved, and it first comes to light in an article, the existing criteria are written to cast a wide net that allows an article about nearly any incident that has been mentioned on the news. The end result is that there are some non-fatal, but historically significant incidents that are deleted, such as an alert pilot averting a collision by mere seconds; and there are some incidents that will not be remembered, even a few months from now, that end up keeping their own article. Articles will continue to be proposed, which is a good thing. The difference is that under Thryduulf's proposal, there would be the option for !voters to suggest a specific middle ground where the information can be kept. I think of it as something like a triage, where one decides who gets the hospital bed, who gets treated and released, and who gets a prescription. Whether you agree or disagree with Thryduulf, it's good to see someone giving thought to perfecting the means of preserving information. Mandsford (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I like it, but I'm not sure how the pyramid diagram comes in. Lets take an article currently up for deletion Vueling Airlines Flight 9127. It may be the first accident of this airline, so it meets item A3, but that's it. So I'd say it should be deleted. But how do we determine if it's a "Level 2a - subject worthy of inclusion as part of another article", or "Level 2b - subject worthy of inclusion as part of another article, with a redirect"? - Trevor MacInnis contribs 00:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Whether it is 2a or 2b is not that important. I haven't yet worked out what specific criteria should be used (in my opinion of course) to determine redirect worthiness. I suppose one test would be to gauge the number of independent search engine hits for the proposed title. In this case there is one independent use of "Vueling Airlines Flight 9127" other than Wikipedia (although there are three duplicates of it), and only about 5 relevant independent uses of "Flight 9127" outside Wikipedia (and I'm not convinced all of them are independent of each other) although there are lots of duplicates. This suggests to me that the article title wouldn't be a very useful search term. This is obviously not objective though. Thryduulf (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I concur with Mansford, I like this draft very much – and most particularly because it tries to provide actual examples of “appropriate” results for these cases. Seeing a good example is often much better than a thousand words of description. Treatment of incidents is a bit weak, though. (I may say more after I’ve looked at mjroot’s suggestions.) I’ll be interested in seeing how you tie this in with the pyramid schema, because a natural question to follow all this is what the relative “value” of meeting more than one category contributes to the “section vs. article” issue. I think you’re on the right track!
A couple of questions, though. First, what got truncated at the end of A4? Second, regarding “deadliest” accidents, what happens when a deadlier accident occurs? Askari Mark (Talk) 03:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
In regards to the "deadliest" part, I think that when a more deadly accident happens, the previous record holder can be updated with (I think I've seen this on various articles) "was the most deadly accident to date, until (current deadliest)". This will (in my eyes) still satisfy notability.- Trevor MacInnis contribs 03:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I feel that under almost all circumstances, if an accident was notable as the deadliest at the time then it continues to be notable in this regard forever. Circumstances where I don't think this is the case include when it turns out the deadliest is one of a series of events (might be best to merge them), and accidents from the very early days of aviation (I'm thinking first crash to kill 3 occupants, first to kill 4, then 5, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Regarding A4, I've fixed it now (thanks for the heads-up), but what got truncated was "[this does not apply where fewer than] 10 airworthy examples exist". I picked that number out of the air, and my gut feeling is that it might be too high, but I'm not expert on this. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
With regard to Scheduled and Charter airlines, if an aircraft is declared as a hull loss then the accident should generally be notable enough to sustain an article. Those substantially damaged should also generally be notable enough to sustain an articele. Obviously there will be exceptions but all write-offs should be mentioned under aircraft type, operator and airport (if applicable). Substantially damaged aircraft may merit such mentions. Mjroots (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
So would a criteria (probably a new A2 with consequent renumbering of others) along the lines of "An accident or incident resulting in the hull loss or other very substantial damage to a commercial aircraft operating a scheduled or charter flight." fit the bill for what you are suggesting? If that is the only notable feature of the accident/incident then it would, like other incidents matching criteria only in the A section be better mentioned under the airline or aircraft article. Nothing in this criteria does preclude mentions elsewhere in addition to its recommended coverage location. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
That's precisely why I suggested Lufthansa Flight 288 to be deleted. There is just no need to have an articles of its own for such a minor accident. Mentioning it in the airlines entry goes well, obviously. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Thryduulf, I'd say that the scenario would be more like 3a "generally (but not always) worthy of an article". Exceptions would be older aircraft that are damaged beyond economic repair where such damage would have been considered repairable had it occured earlier in the aircraft's service. Mjroots (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I cannot think of a situation where there would be a notable hull-loss accident in which there would not be other factors that also make it notable. The idea behind these notability guidelines is that no one single factor is enough to qualify an incident for a separate article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Contact Air 288 is not a minor accident. The aircraft was substantially damaged and (crystal time) may possibly be a hull loss. As the worst ever accident suffered by the airline, and with coverage by multiple independant sources, it clearly meets both WP:AIRCRASH and WP:N. Mjroots (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with you there - it was (as far as we can tell at the moment) as simple landing gear failure, which is hardly unique. There were no injuries, there was no fire, the emergency procedures worked, nobody notable played any significant role in the incident, there was no hijacking, there was no exceptional skill involved in the landing (unlike the ditching in the river), it was not significant in terms of the history of the airport, it did not (as far as we currently know) involve any unusual circumstances, it is not the first accident for the type of plane, and much of the news coverage that I saw was solely the result of their being video of it. If you read discussions on the previous drafts you will see why media coverage is not a criteria in this (fourth) draft. It is significant only in terms of the airline (and it wouldn't be nearly so significant if it were operated by e.g. Lufthansa). This is why the extent of the coverage that exists at present on the airline's article is sufficient. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Notability/Archive_1&oldid=1142155061"