Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longtail Aviation Flight 5504


 * 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 no consensus. While some took issue with this being a minor event, others pointed out significant coverage and the fact of injuries making it a significant event. Overall I see no consensus for deletion. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Longtail Aviation Flight 5504

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable aviation incidents. Engine failures are common. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete nothing indicated this of particularly note, just a bad day at the office, change the engine life moves on. MilborneOne (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, there was minimal mayhem, bystander injuries are unusual but not unprecedented. Carguychris (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep incident received international coverage on day of and local follow-up coverage in subsequent days, so meets WP:N, and nom statement that the incident is non-notable is false (it is true that engine failures are common, but that does not make them all non-notable). Injuries to people on the ground are notable, and were noted by multiple outlets. I have added additional detail with refs to the article. Dhaluza (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Two people were injured on the ground, a women was hit in the head by debris. This is not a normal occurrence.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Somewhat similar incident Delta Air Lines Flight 89 and its AfD discussion. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And also Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 328. Dhaluza (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. This event is notable for injuries, property damage, and disruptions per WP:SIGCOV. While nominator is technically correct that Engine failures are common, notability is a function of their impacts. Not of the failures themselves! gidonb (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Per above. If the UA328 result was keep, then this more should.Yyang Sr. GakupoKaito (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough sources to meet GNG. MB 06:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can be closed as snow keep. No case was made for deletion or even exists. Even when there were fewer references in the article, the article should have been kept per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The event received coverage from many sources, some from other languages including. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. While the nominator did not have a proper rationale, I have one: a violation of WP:ONEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. all of the coverage (which is 99% of the citations of this article) was published on the day of the event, and I've found no independent sources published after that. Gbooks and GScholar searches give you nothing. Only source after that date cited is a June 2021 primary source from OVV stating the investigation was going on, and that claim gained no coverage whatsoever. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ONEVENT is for people, so not applicable. And the coverage continued over several days, so your statement that it was only day of is just completely incorrect (check the refs). Dhaluza (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Both policies do not support deletion. WP:1E applies only to people known for one event. Events are per definition known for an event. Per WP:NOTNEWS: Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events, i.e. NOTNEWS clearly encourages well-rounded and well-sourced event articles with encyclopedic value, such as Longtail Aviation Flight 5504. It's an argument for KEEP! gidonb (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, "one day" probably wasn't the best wording to use. Technically, it was covered by the press for more than one day... but less than a week. It's true that WP:Notability is not temporary, but I doubt anything that gets interest for less than a week with no coverage, commentary in the context of wider issues, or updates since February 25 has a long-lasting-enough notability to absolve it from NOTNEWS. The dates of all the articles and OVV primary source citations in this article (minus the OVV announcement from June 2021 that doesn't add anything to the topic's notability) are from February 20 to February 25.
 * Also, to the use of the NOTNEWS quote "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events" (1) the issue of "current and up-to-date information" is a separate issue of content inclusion, not topic notability, and (2) what is "significant" about a flight that only got news headlines and has been never analyzed by journals or academics as part of bigger issues? States NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". The only coverage this topic got makes it only a news-worthy-for-the-moment event like any other; regarded of how encyclopedic the prose of the wiki article is, the notability is not good enough to be past only news event notability, which NOTNEWS prohibits articles of.
 * Yes, NOTNEWS "encourages well-rounded and well-sourced event articles with encyclopedic value", which includes making sure the topic is of encyclopedic value. Newsworthy events that are nothing else but that are not of encyclopedia value, thus Longtail Aviation Flight 5504 fails NOTNEWS. NOTNEWS overrides SIGCOV and GNG here. Yes, all the sources with the news headlines were secondary sources about the event which meets SIGCOV, but they were only news pieces about that event nonetheless, all published within a week, failing NOTNEWS. 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're using assumptions that are not based on thorough research. NOTNEWS is a strong argument for keep. NOTNEWS says most enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion (there is no bold in the source). This does not replace that Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events, i.e. that articles such as Longtail Aviation Flight 5504 are ENCOURAGED by WP:NOTNEWS. Then what does the word "most" (twice) refer to? The bulk of the news is clearly insignificant from a historic perspective. Things people or organizations did or said (e.g. someone was spotted at an event, a book was just released, a company merged, someone made an interesting argument in a parliament, someone left a band, a new slogan was introduced, someone said something strange in a campaign message) are the bulk of the events in the news but rarely become noteworthy stand alone events from a historic point of view. Aviation incidents that receive global coverage, however, remain part of public discussions also outside the week that you are now willing to concede. For example in the following articles: Netherlands, June 8, Belgium, July 2, Australia, July 5. The bottom-line is that no one has yet given even one working argument to delete this article. gidonb (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have changed my !vote to a Weak keep following the three independent sources provided (although not found in my searches for some reason), but these should be cited in the article. "Global coverage" doesn't automatically indicate SIGCOV. All of the "global coverage" here I saw before you provided these examples were just news sources citing other news sources published around the same date for info, as is common with several flash-in-the-pan incidents. On another topic, you're still mis-interpreting NOTNEWS. "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information" only states to keep info of any article up to date with news sources; it's not about when to create articles. Additionally, that NOTNEWS quote specifically states to create stand-alone articles on "significant events". How significant this event is according to coverage is what we're debating here, and if the coverage doesn't indicate that, then a topic having its own article is NOT encouraged by NOTNEWS. I'll end this discussion here as examples have been providing indicating a least a little bit of secondary source interest in a topic this month, but I'd also like editors to know their policies and guidelines properly. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The global coverage were not cross citations as you assert. There was original reporting by several different teams of reports from different outlets doing original by-lined reporting. Again, check the author names in the refs. Dhaluza (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Almost nothing gets covered by the press for a week, so that would be a ridiculous standard unlikely to get consensus. The key is whether reporters stay on the story and write substantive follow-up articles. There are several examples of that here. And the OVV is both a primary and secondary source. The fact that they started an investigation is secondary source evidence of notability, i.e. they don't investigate everything. NotNews just says that things in the news don't necessarily belong in the encyclopedia, and in fact most things don't. But when a subject gets an unusual level of coverage not given to most things, that's an indication that it's not routine news. Dhaluza (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, minimal incident that does not require a standalone article. Maybe include it in P&W PW4000 page?.--Paolo9999 (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Move to more descriptive title from ref 2: Falling debris in Meerssen. I am modifying my keep vote to move because the formulaic title using the flight number does not properly summarize the subject, and framing the subject this way is a form of aviation chauvinism. None of the WP:RS use the flight number in their title--it is only included as a passing reference if at all. Other than the destination, there is no other publicly available info on the flight per se.


 * The location is more descriptive and sufficiently specific to distinguish this from other Parts Departing Aircraft events, so we don't need an arbitrary number. And we have a criminal investigation that closed with no finding of fault, so there is no reason to include Longtail Aviation in the title. I'm going to agree with User:HumanxAnthro in part, because to the extent that corporations are people, Longtail Aviation should not be famous for this WP:ONEVENT.


 * Because the formulaic title drives the lede, it places undue WP:WEIGHT on the commercial aviation angle of the story, which is not the most important. What happened on the ground got far more coverage than what happened in the air.Dhaluza (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Not famous but enough long article.Airline Plane Crash (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SIGCOV. Subject lacks sustained significant coverage proving it has lasting notability. There are hundreds of similar plane crashes every year. This is not notable. Further, vehicular crashes involving cars, trucks, buses, etc causing similar or greater amounts of damage also aren’t covered for the same reason because they happen routinely. Arguments about lives lost and property damage indicating notability are spurious and not policy based. These kinds of events are only notable if we have quality sources showing sustained coverage beyond routine news coverage of crashes. 4meter4 (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * These kinds of events are only notable if we have quality sources showing sustained coverage beyond routine news coverage of crashes. This precisely what we have, making it an argument to keep. See sources that I have added above. gidonb (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Move I really like the proposal submitted by Dhaluza, and I can't improve on it. If I may pontificate a bit, and this has nothing to do with Wikipedia policies... I'll come at this issue from a different angle. I can appreciate the effort spent building the article to its current state, but in my opinion it really shouldn't have lasted beyond the initial stub.  We need to set a precedent so that these kinds of articles don't keep getting built in the first place.  We have lots of articles needing to be created or expanded, yet time is being spent on these no-big-deal events because there's a plethora of easily accessible resources for current-day events.  Surely some of us agree with me that time would be better spent digging deep with google books/magazine/newspaper searches to expand or create articles for old crashes where dozens died.  Sure, it's more difficult, but it's kind of rewarding to find nuggets of information gathering dust in musty corners of the web, and build something out of them from scratch.  Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now, and hope I didn't anger the people who worked on the article. I can't remember where the list of crashes that need articles is located.  Once I find it I'll go tackle some of them, so I don't look like a hypocrite. – Itsfullofstars (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2021 (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.