Talk:2015 Seville Airbus A400M crash

Spanish Air Force?
not sure it is a spanish air force aircraft... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.90.102.85 (talk • contribs)
 * It would seem that you may be correct to have doubts. The EC-403 registration would seem to be a Class B civil registration. Mjroots (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It was to be delivered to the Turkish Air Force but at the time of the flight it belonged to Airbus Military so nothing to do with the Spanish Air Force. MilborneOne (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Article should be deleted
I find it hard to understand why this accident has generated its own wiki article. Flash-in-the-pan-news with very little notability, if any, IMHO. Suggest that relevant info be merged into the A400M article at [], and this article be deleted. EditorASC (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It meets WP:GNG and there is a high degree of likelihood at this point in time that it will result in changes to the aircraft design or procedural changes of a lasting nature, although that will take some time to determine. - Ahunt (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. I think this description, within the guidelines of WP:GNG, fits this situation like a glove:


 * "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage."


 * Which means to me that what MIGHT TRANSPIRE in the future about this accident, is not enough to justify its own article now. Of course, it could be re-considered for its own article later, depending upon how long news articles continue to cover it, and if a lot of new significant information, along with critical analysis, continues to develop.  But, for now, I think the small amount of significant facts so far, would fit well in the A400M article  [], which already has a paragraph mentioning this accident.


 * "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." WP:GNG


 * Makes sense to me, so again suggesting the current small amount of significant news about this crash be added to that paragraph and this article be deleted, until such time that there might be enough quantity and detail in WP:RS sources, to make it feasible to construct a reasonable size, stand alone Wiki article for this crash. EditorASC (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Personally I no longer send aircraft accident articles to WP:AFD as they always result in "keeps", but you are welcome to try if you like. - Ahunt (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You are probably right about that. In spite of the no-canvassing rule, it goes on all the time so it would most likely be an exercise in futility. EditorASC (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * notifying a Wikiproject that an article that falls under their remit has been nominated for deletion does not constitute canvassing. That rule is broken iff the notification implores people to !vote keep or delete. Mjroots (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Nor did I suggest that such a notification DID constitute canvassing. I was making reference to my own previous experience when those opposed to deleting almost any article, regularly engaged in canvassing as a means to defeat nearly all AFD requests. There are all kinds of tricks used to enable practitioners to violate the canvassing rule and it always seems to work. Worst I have ever seen is a warning to one or two of them, and that tends to be very rare. Most just continue canvassing with impunity, probably because too many Admins don't want to be involved in the long, time-consuming process of trying to prove it was deliberate and repeated, to therefore justify any possible sanctions. EditorASC (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Further sources
Pprune is not a RS. It is, however, a useful source of RSs. This is the Pprune discussion thread about the crash. Plenty of useful links there. Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The BBC is a RS, and this report may be useful in expanding the article and the A400M article. Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * BBC reporting that data being wiped from the computer controlling the engines was the cause of the crash. Mjroots (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Contradictory nomenclature
The Info-Box contains contradictory terms: "incident" and "accident." Since the proper ICAO term is clearly "accident," I propose the "incident" term be changed to "accident" too. I would normally make the correction myself, but since the Info-Box seems to be rather sacrosanct in Wiki articles, I think it best to change it only with consensus. EditorASC (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As there was damage it was an accident and the infobox photo caption should be changed to reflect that. - Ahunt (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It has now been fixed - Ahunt (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)