Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Hudson River mid-air collision


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

The result was   Keep. Consensus is overwhelmingly supportive for keeping this article, and the calls for deletion are not successful in minimizing the notability of this tragic event. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

2009 Hudson River mid-air collision
Small aircraft accidents happen hundreds of times a year. Just because this one made the national news, does not qualify it as notable under WP:N (see "Notability is not temporary", for example).

Although specific notability guidelines for aircraft accidents aren't defined explicity in general, there are good guidelines under WP:Air/PC that I think are reasonable. Under these guidelines, this accident is not "Notable" for inclusion in a dictionary. WP is not a news source, it's an encyclopedia. Seanfranklin (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: I disagree. Though this crash didn't kill say 150+ people like many other infamous air crashes did it is still worth inclusion as it occurred in one the busiest air traffic zones in the world and most likely will result in changes to how air traffic control in the New York City area operates. Believe me there is seldom an air disaster as extensively covered as this that doesn't go on to change air regulations in some way. --Kuzwa (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: IF the crash does result in changes, THEN it will be notable. The guidelines in WP:Air/PC account for this. Until then, though, this is news - not a notable article. Seanfranklin (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As we speak, the FAA and the NTSB are probably reviewing changes to the Manhattan corridor airspace. In their report, the NTSB hinted at several flaws that need to be fixed following this incident. -- Whaatt  uSpeak  what iDone  23:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe they are, maybe not. The last mid-air collision in the Hudson VFR corridor was in 1963, I'd say the procedures are apparently pretty good - either that or there have been a few hundred thousand "very lucky" pilots through there in the last 46 years.  I'm not saying that changes won't, or even shouldn't be made.  I am saying that until and unless changes are made, this topic remains simply news, not a notable subject for an encyclopedia. Seanfranklin (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Non-notable in the overall scheme of aircraft accidents, fails to meet WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content. A car, bus, boat, railway or other transportation accident that resulted in nine deaths would be unlikely to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. It is merely journalistic sensationalism that results in light aircraft accidents on the same scale as car accidents becoming temporarily national news. As an encyclopedia Wikipedia need not subscribe to this standard of journalism. - Ahunt (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a judgment call on everyone's part as to whether this will have "historical notability"; needless to say, not everything that is in the news is barred by WP:NOTNEWS. The reasons that I think that it's likely to be remembered more than the usual mid-air collision is that it's an accident involving the multiple deaths of tourists who were enjoying themselves until the unexpected happened.  We have an entire Category: Helicopter accidents, and although most accidents would not qualify, there are some that end up in almanacs.  Based on observations from old World Almanacs, I think this will end up in a chronology and on a table of notable aviation accidents  As Kurwa correctly points out, most small aircraft accidents, such as the crash of a Cessna or a Lear Jet, do not get comparable coverage.  Perhaps, in the long run, someone can merge those articles into a list of tourist accidents.  Mandsford (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Several things make this article stand out from other small, private aircraft incidents. Among them:
 * 1) The NTSB sent a team to investigate this.
 * 2) It made national news.
 * 3) There are exceptional amounts of information and resources on this topic.
 * 4) This will likely result in changes to the Manhattan airspace that might affect all aircraft there, big and small.
 * For these reasons, I suggest this article be kept. -- Whaatt  uSpeak  what iDone  23:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep it's a mid-air collision between two aircraft, it's not like those are common. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If something generates widespread news coverage then it is ipso facto notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The problem with that line of thinking is that this accident also generated widespread national news coverage, but I don't think anyone believes it should be a Wikipedia article. It was just a slow news day. - Ahunt (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That article you mentioned was about an emergency landing. There are most definitely several around the US and Canada everyday, I see several in my area. Mid-air collisions in such volatile corridors are not everyday occurrences, and there might be one every six months or even less often. The difference between the Hudson collision and other incidents in terms of coverage is that the Hudson collision has been given extended coverage over the past week, and will probably continue to generate stories, while incidents like the one you mentioned will maybe have coverage for the few hours that it occurs in. Thanks, Whaatt  uSpeak  what iDone  13:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any other news coverage for that other incident - the comparison is therefore not valid. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - not really notable just news on the day. MilborneOne (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was just everyday news for the amount of coverage and the time of coverage (1 week) it was given. Thanks, Whaatt  uSpeak  what iDone  13:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The coverage outside of the United States was minimal as I said news on the day. MilborneOne (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I think most any collision in New York City airspace would be notable. This is not just a small plane going down due to engine failure or something.  It made national news, which means all the news organizations also thought it was far more notable than all the other small-plane crashes which do not get reported outside of their area.  Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I think it should be noted that the guidelines for this are at WP:AIRCRASH, not WP:Air/PC, which deals with accidents and incidents lists on aircraft pages. -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  15:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but the guidelines in WP:Aircrash are so vague as to be useless. What constitutes "Unusual circumstances"?  If an airplane crashes, it's unusual by definition. Seanfranklin (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Disregarding the bullet point about "unusual circumstances", WP:AIRCRASH says that an incident is notable if there is extended coverage beyond the time frame of the incident. That is certainly true in this case. Whaatt  uSpeak  what iDone  00:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It does say that, but again that's vague. What is "Beyond the timeframe"?  This article was started within 24 hours of the event, so certainly that doesn't qualify.  WP:NTEMP clearly applies here in my opinion.  In one year, what will be notable about this event to anyone not personally involved?  Perhaps it will have resulted in some changes in the way flights through the corridor are handled, if so then at that point it will be notable.  If the NTSB and FAA decide that this was an isolated incident and that no policy changes are needed (quite plausible, given the 46-years between collisions) then this is simply old news a year from now.  The article should be deleted, and re-examined only if circumstances make it notable at some point in the future. Seanfranklin (talk) 01:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If collisions only happen every 46 years, that would definitely seem to be an "unusual circumstance" :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - Definitely a borderline case right now. Changes do seem likely at this point, esp in the Manhattan airspace. Also, such collisions are rare. - BilCat (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - if nothing else, due to the number of dead, at least. It's not often that so many casualties result from a general aviation-related incident like this.  That in itself will make it notable, I think. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The NTSB investigates every aviation accident, as opposed to selected traffic accidents, so the NTSB investigating this accident does not make it stand out as a unique event. Only when the NTSB final report is issued will any conclusion about this accident be truly able to be discerned. Currently, the sources are confined to several days of initial and follow-on reporting by news sources, which are not aviation experts, giving rise to concerns about WP:NOTNEWS for this article. Conclusions about the effects of this accident are WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, or even WP:CRYSTAL and should not be a basis for keeping the article. Essentially, the same arguments could be made for a case that the Piper pilot was in error and caused the accident for failure to follow established regulations. Again, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and/or WP:CRYSTAL until the NTSB report is published, or until the FAA, or its local FDSO, publishes changes to the procedures as a result of the accident. --Born2flie (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep because the accident happened in the air space it did, I believe this makes it a WP:N event. Admrboltz (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Reviewing WP:N, I think this more than qualifies. Ks64q2 (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you mind elaborating on that with some specifics? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. According to WP:AIRCRASH. 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.


 * Three of the four criteria are met. There were certainly unusual circumstances, like the controllers either on the phone or out of the building, the first collision in a busy corridor in over 45 years, there will be changes to air traffic control in NYC as a result of this and news coverage continues after the immediate time frame. In addition, the chairman of the NTSB came to the crash site, something that I doubt is common for private aviation crashes. Jeffutz (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The "Unusual circumstances" that you quote are vague. Every airplane accident is unusual, at least we hope so.  You say that downstream changes to the industry is met - how?  It might be met at some point, and if so at that time this topic will be notable and an article is justified.  NTSB chairman - certainly this accident is "high profile" because it's in the news.  That does not make it notable as defined for Wikipedia.


 * I don't want to come off as just being troublesome - I am as interested in this accident as anyone, perhaps more so. I own a PA32R, same type as in the accident.  I have flown the Hudson VFR corridor.  This accident is very much of interest and concern to me, but that doesn't make it a notable event for an encyclopedia.  This article is a news report, nothing more.  Encyclopedias are written from facts, which will be weeks and months in coming for this event.  At a bare minimum, an article of this sort should wait for the NTSB Factual Report, or even better the Probable Cause report. Seanfranklin (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Interesting dual tendencies, talking generally: some people think articles about what they are interested in as overly notable, some just the opposite, equally unreasonably. I can understand the first as an obvious human failing; i still have trouble understand the causation for the second, but it's certainly present, though more common with fiction and the like.   That;'s why we go not by opinions here, but what the media say,. Seems pretty obviously notable. Multi-person fatal air accidents are of general public interest, and when they occur as prominently as this, they remain notable. With respect to NOT NEWS, this is a pretty clear example of exactly the sort  of news story that is not just news. I need only mention that the further implications are about the effectiveness of the US air control system in general--if it doesn't even work in this location, the implications go way beyond those for owners of such airplanes.  That all the facts are not known does not mean that nothing is known.  The fact that the accident happened  is enough for an article.     DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Midair collisions are inherently notable due to their rarity. The fact that it happened in such a highly populated area (and heavily trafficked corridor) makes it all the more notable. Cmprince (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems to me that this event should be wrapped up with a conclusion before it is put into the AFD category. We're only halfway there, anything can happen to make it more notable or less notable, but the application to delete is IMHO premature. Meanwhile, it is very much in the news, and to not deal with it is, well, just plain silly.  JohnClarknew (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Several reasons. 1) It is astronomically rare for anyone to get video of a mid-air collision because such events are already extremely rare and someone had to coincidentally have a camera already on at a suitable place and time to get the video.  The coverage with the video makes it notable for the unique glimpse at what happened.  2) There was news media coverage of this accident on the level with larger accidents because it took place in the dense metro area of New York City with many witnesses, making it notable via many sources. 3) The FAA is already enacting the process of review of New York airspace following the collision, making it notable from current FAA press releases.  (The NY airspace modernization process had been stalled by local opposition - this event has given it forward movement again.)  See "FAA Airspace Group Will Recommend Safety Improvements in New York". Any one of these is enough to dispel the rationale for the AfD.  One thing I am not listing as a reason: notability is not a function of fatality count. Ikluft (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination asserts without evidence it fails to meet the WP:SNG at WP:Air/PC. I believe it obviously meets that threshold.  I think this accident has a special significance among aircraft accidents for several reasons: it is leading to a renewed debate on the rules for passing through the Hudson corridor; it is focusing on the lack of attention and supervision by the FAA over this area; it was a fortunate event these aircraft crashed into the river as opposed to the riverfront where the potential loss of life would have been far greater.  Some of the delete rationales given above are wrong on the facts: It is definitely not a single news cycle story.  Anything that needs to be changed after the final report arrives in a year or so can be edited without violating WP:CRYSTAL.  patsw (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually I believe it clearly does NOT meet the WP:Air/PC threshold. That section states that in the event of a small airplane flight without independently notable participants (e.g. JFK Jr crash), that "it meets all of the following requirements: The event was fatal to either aircraft occupants or persons on the ground; and The event involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport; and The event resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directives (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft)."  Clearly the third part has not yet been met.  However, as pointed out elsewhere, this topic is not under WP:Air but rather WP:Aviation, which has more ambiguous requirements for notability.


 * I believe that the topic is not notable at this time, that it is a "News" item, and that facts are in short supply. The mainstream media is prone to speculative and sensationalist reporting of aviation accidents, particularly when they are not "encumbered by the facts" that will be contained in the NTSB Probable Cause report.  I believe that the article will by necessity consist of speculation and POV issues (even if well-sourced) until after the NTSB report comes out, and I believe that the article should be shelved until that time.


 * That said, it's obvious that I am in the minority on that opinion, and clearly some valid points have been made in favor of keeping the article. I do agree that it's plausible that changes to procedures could result, and that this topic may well meet WP:Air/PC notability requirements in the future.  If the admins choose to reject the proposed deletion, I will continue to contribute and attempt to ensure that the article maintains NPOV, particularly prior to the issuance of the Probable Cause report. Seanfranklin (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I will not repeat the many arguments of others already adduced; there are numerous valid arguments give here which are in sum overwhelmingly convincing for keeping the article. -- Ishel99 (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This won't fly. Lampman (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Outside of the notability issue, its already a GA worthy article, it is well sourced, and a mid-air collision between two aircraft is certainly not something that happens hundreds of times a year. Also notable because this isn't a farm field that it crashed into, its the centre of a major metropolitan area. Even if it doesn't meet notability, keep by WP:IAR as it is certainly an informative and reliable article. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  01:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.