Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alaska Airlines Flight 779


 * 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   delete. L Faraone  06:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Alaska Airlines Flight 779

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a military cargo flight that crashed in the early 1960s. It has had no lasting effect on aviation or the military, and there have been no changes to procedures or aircraft design as a result. The soldiers who died were not notable enough for their own articles. (While it has a civilian flight number, it was a military charter; no civilians were involved, except for the airplane itself.)

Based on this, the article fails the criteria in WP:AIRCRASH, an essay commonly used as a guideline over at the Aviation WikiProject. Furthermore, it fails WP:GNG and WP:N(E). This article was prodded, and subsequently de-prodded, which leads us to this discussion. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 03:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  04:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  04:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - According to WP:AIRCRASHthis was a civilian aircraft (albeit transporting Military personnel). It meets 2 of the 3 critera (Loss of Hull & Loss of Life) - Rehnn83 Talk 12:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a military charter, on a military route, flown by military personnel, carrying military cargo, following military regulations to fly to a military base. (Disclaimer: some of this is supposition.) Regardless of that, WP:AIRCRASH covers notability threshholds for inclusion in the airline's article and explicitly notes that to merit a stand-alone article it must pass the other notability guidelines (WP:GNG, WP:N(E), etc). --OldManInACoffeeCan (Mukkakukaku's alt for public terminals) 14:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Correction: the crew were all Alaska Airlines employees according to the Civil Aeronautics Board report. But my point is that it was not a commercial flight: it was a flight performed by civilians for the military. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû  (blah?) 02:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:AIRCRASH distinguishes between "Accidents involving light aircraft and military aircraft" vs. "airline and large civil aircraft", specifically using the word "aircraft" in both cases. Can you point to any part of this policy that would justify not treating a civil aircraft, owned by a civil airline and flown by a civil crew as being an "airline and large civil aircraft"? Maybe policy ought to be changed, but there is a clear meaning of all the words involved. Alansohn (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what makes this case rather unique: the essay (WP:AIRCRASH is not policy) provides differing criteria for civilian and military aircraft, but military charters which are some middling grey area have no criteria defined. I think the important thing to note, however, is that the notability of civilian-or-military aircraft criteria is that for inclusion in the airline's article; the essay goes on to say that in addition to the incidents notability per that criteria it must also pass the general notability and inclusion standards for standalone articles. So even if this were to be considered a civilian crash per WP:AIRCRASH, it still would only merit a standalone article if and only if it passed WP:GNG, WP:N(E), etc. OldManInACoffeeCan (Mukkakukaku's alt for public terminals) 04:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not only does this article fail WP:AIRCRASH, which details the general consensus on the subject, but it also fails WP:GNG and WP:PERSISTENCE. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The military aircraft exclusion would apply if this were a military aircraft, but it isn't. As a civilian aircraft, this incident meets the criteria specified by WP:AIRCRASH that "The accident was fatal to humans" and that "The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport". This court verdict from the United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit describes that "On July 21, 1961, while Northwest was operating the Shemya airfield under the terms of its lease agreement with the United States of America, a DC6 airplane owned by Alaska and operated by it as Flight 779, crashed and burned near the approach end of Runway 10 at Shemya. All six crew members aboard the aircraft were killed and the aircraft was destroyed or substantially damaged." As a civilian aircraft flown by civilian personnel with loss of life and hull loss, the WP:AIRCRASH standard is satisfied. The sources here are more than adequate to meet any independent notability guideline. Alansohn (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The thing that's being missed is that the WP:AIRCRASH standard refers to inclusion in a type's, airline's, or airport's article. It goes on to note that a stand-alone article may be appropriate if both WP:AIRCRASH and WP:GNG are met, and the latter is not in this case; also, the "airline and large civil aircraft" statement is generally accepted by consensus to refer to passenger-carrying flights, not freighters - if only aircrew was killed, the "fatal to humans" criterion is not considered met. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:AIRCRASH uses the word "humans" and it appears that the plane had an all-human crew, all of whom were killed in the crash. Even if the crew was made up entirely of robots, aliens and/or well-trained raccoons, you only knocked off one of the criteria and the crash resulted in hull loss, which satisfies the standard on its own. As someone suggested to me earlier today, you may want to get the policy changed if you believe that it's wrong. The sources are more than adequate to meet any notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Question: We have contradictory statements. Can someone provide evidence of the whether the crew was civilian or military? This seems to be the question. Nom says military but User:Alansohn suggests otherwise. JodyBtalk 19:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Answer: Civil airline charter flights almost always include an airline crew to fly the aircraft. Renting an aircraft without crew is normally termed a "lease", not a "charter". The first ref bears this out, the crew was civil, not military. - Ahunt (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The real issue here seems to be WP:EVENTS over WP:AIRCRASH and WP:GNG. I don't see it surviving under EVENTS. I'm still looking and can still be persuaded either way. JodyBtalk 21:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Civil Aeronautics Board accident investigation report also concurs with the fact that the crew were all civilian employees of Alaska Airlines. So, both the plane and the crew were civilian, but the mission, the cargo, and all places (origin/stopovers/destination) were military installations. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû  (blah?) 03:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This article fails all the way around. Sourcing, albeit reliable, is limited to trade publications. There is no persistent effect arising from the accident. It was simply a news event and not a notable encyclopedic event. JodyBtalk 22:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, per The Bushranger and JodyB: Regradless of what WP:AIRCRASH says, the higher-order WP:EVENT is not met.--FoxyOrange (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:EVENT - no evidence of lasting effect.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 18:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge - There are really two issues here. (1) Our longstanding practice at AfD and WP:OUTCOMES has been to keep the content of aircraft articles if they meet two or three of the factors at AIRCRASH.  In this case, it meets at least two of those factors. (2) Then the question arises, as noted at AIRCRASH, "Is it worthy for a stand-alone article, or should it be merged?" This is my wording.  Now for my analysis.  This crash involved six military deaths, on a civilian flight, and sadly, appears to have had no lasting effects.  There does not seem to be many online sources that allow it to pass WP:GNG.  In conclusion, I would merge it to an appropriate target, such as a list or Alaska Airlines. Bearian (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2013 (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.