Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empire Airlines Flight 8284


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 16:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Empire Airlines Flight 8284

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unremarkable aviation incident, no deathe and minor injuries to the crew. And nothing interesting about the cause, either TheLongTone (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per AIRCRASH. Small cargo aircraft with no fatalities, not notable. - Samf4u (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete doesnt appear to be particularly noteworthy, nobody killed, it didnt hit anything important and nothing changed in the industry. MilborneOne (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per AIRCRASH as this was a hull loss for the feeder airline of a major cargo airline. Agree it's not the most notable accident in aviation history. SportingFlyer (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Want to clarify my comment above: it's still notable. News articles:   Followup local broadcast news article that's 1) on YouTube 2) was on for an early three-minute block in the broadcast:   Secondary sources (official and blogs):   SportingFlyer (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS. AIRCRASH is only an essay and not policy, but would probably fail it anyway. Non-notable accident with no notable consequences / effects.--Petebutt (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - this was a hull loss accident. I reject the argument that accidents involving cargo aircraft are less notable than accidents involving aircraft that carry passengers. As long as the aircraft involved is of a size that meets our agreed criteria, then it should not matter what it was carrying. Mjroots (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Question for Mjroots. Is the agreed criteria you refer to a gross weight of more than 12,500 lb?
 * I believe that accidents involving freifght aircraft are much more common than those involving self-loading cargo. Which would mave them less notable.TheLongTone (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the passenger carrying capacity of a non-cargo version of that type of aircraft. However, the aircraft type in question also exceeds the weight you quoted. Either way, we have a large enough aircraft that a hull loss means it should be capable of passing WP:GNG via WP:V x WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Got it, thank you. - Samf4u (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 03:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable aviation incident....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:AIRCRASH states that an accident is notable if The accident was fatal to humans or the accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport. That accident did involve a hull loss of more than 12,500 lb, which make it notable enough to pass it and WP:GNG. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Want to make one more comment: several delete votes here claim it's not notable without providing any reasons as to why it's not. I concede commercial plane crashes without fatalities have a little more work to do than plane crashes with fatalities to get over the WP:GNG line, but I don't see any good policy arguments for its deletion other than the fact it's "not notable." Since it's a hull loss as per WP:AIRCRASH (just an essay), and since significant coverage otherwise existed (including local news follow-up stories, citing the accident in sites which contain a database of notable CVR logs here, and ongoing third-party non-news coverage as to the result of the incident ) both WP:GNG (per ongoing coverage) and WP:AIRCRASH are clearly satisfied. The NTSB also made safety changes as a result of the accident:  I'd like to qualify my "not the most notable accident in aviation history" comment above as it could easily fly under the radar as a hull-loss feeder cargo accident without deaths get less news than a passenger accident without a hull loss or even any injuries, but this was a major accident nevertheless. SportingFlyer (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails GNG. The thing to remember about WP:AIRCRASH is that it is an essay, and it is more geared for passenger vs. military crashes - transport flights fall in between, and the ATR 42 while not a small aircraft is not a particularly large one (seating 40-52 passengers when configured as such). This particular crash while resulting in a hull writeoff, did not fully destroy the hull. No fatalities. No change to regulations. It was covered in news in 2009, but not later. There are some google books ( where the NTSB report summary is in an appendix, and where the NTSB report summary is in a page) and a few scholar hits (none of which are cited by more than 10. A mixture of passing mentions and NTSB report spinoffs - e.g.  which is about simulation modeling). And we have, as usual, the NTSB report. The level of coverage here is lower than that present in many military crashes which we would delete - and does not pass SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment There were follow-up articles from 2011 when the NTSB report was released; . I don't understand what you mean by "did not fully destroy the hull," as the hull was definitely lost/written off. Whether a hull is completely destroyed has no bearing on WP:GNG. SportingFlyer (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The hull was written off - it was not destroyed - in terms of WP:AIRCRASH (as essay, we should remember, not policy) - this is a writeoff of a small to medium transport flight - which is really on the edge of the essay. Reporting on the NTSB report are fairly routine. Basically this thing got coverage the week it happened (and not all that wide), some coverage later when the NTSB released a report, the NTSB report itself (not grounds for notability - the NTSB investigates anything), and minute subsequent mentions.Icewhiz (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That the hull was destroyed or written off is basically the same thing: the plane never flew again. L293D (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 14:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a distinct difference between deciding not to repair an aircraft (for instance in order to file an insurance claim and/or sell the parts for spares/scrap) and a catastrophic hull loss which is not repairable. The former is a matter of judgement at the time of the accident (which can be affected by a multitude of conditions - including the financial circumstances of the company, market conditions, and age/value of the aircraft) and the latter is absolute (as fixing what remains when you have a hole in the ground is impossible).Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * To illustrate - the write off decision may have been different (and definitely a closer call) had this been a 2 year old plane and not a 19 year old plane (aircraft are typically depreciated at 5%-10% per annum. 19 years is at the edge of service life for some models). Jan 2009 was the height of the financial crisis. These are all variables unrelated to the crash, but a writeoff decision for a fairly old aircraft in an accident is different from a newish aircraft.Icewhiz (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate this line of reasoning. We don't have an article for UPS 5X61, which "crashed" when the nose gear failed during takeoff and the aircraft was written off. Even though it was a write-off that probably had a lot to do with the fact it was an MD-11 in 2016... But also note the difference in the aviation-safety database articles: versus . The UPS flight was "substantially" damaged; the ATR-42 in this instance caught fire and was "destroyed." The entire right side of the plane caught fire (the photo isn't in the wikipedia article.) That's the distinction I make between these two types of hull losses. SportingFlyer (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

* Delete (unless) – The NTSB's recommendations are not binding. Unless the ATR-42's stick-pusher logics was actually modified as a result of this incident (and I could not find any source confirming that after a quick search), then the event remains a non-notable incident caused mainly by poor airmanship, like countless others. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * @Deeday-UK it does not appear that it was by the FAA, but the EASA did take it up and looked into the Saab 340 as a result of this crash. Simulator practices of icing conditions were also changed, and some recommendations remain open. Source: SportingFlyer (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:EVENT. There are lookback stories in local media and significant analytical coverage in academic papers BillHPike (talk, contribs) 05:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep – I've changed my vote to Keep after considering the number of references to the event in apparently reliable academic papers. People researching those papers would reasonably expect to find some coverage of this accident on Wikipedia. --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep – I find the rationale, "nothing interesting about the cause" to personally be insufficient as a primary reason for deleting an article. It has a reasonable number of references and has been noted in a variety of academic papers (see above). -- HunterM267  ❯  talk  17:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. As for the hull loss, the entry mentioning the incident in the parent company's article is more than enough.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 22:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Billhpike. Lookback articles are a clear indicator that it meets longevity requirements for coverage as an event. Acebulf (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2018 (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.