Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pan Am Clipper Panama


 * 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. Most of the arguments to keep the article are weak and rely upon an inappropriate criterion for keeping the article. There are a few instances of coverage from the period that suggests the incident may meet the general notability guidelines, but this is borderline and difficult to determine. The arguments to delete the article have not sufficiently addressed the issues of contemporary coverage or other issues pertaining to the notability of the incident. No consensus has emerged from the discussion.  Malinaccier ( talk ) 19:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Pan Am Clipper Panama

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Cargo flight crash not notable enough for independent article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:GNG, with no fatalities on a cargo flight in an aircraft with a relatively poor safety record. There is no cause for this article to remain in mainspace.--Petebutt (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Where are the claims, and who makes them, that this aircraft has a poor safety record? There are not such statements that I see in the aircraft's main article nor in the List of accidents and incidents involving the Douglas DC-6. ww2censor (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - a major airliner was destroyed. A lack of fatalities ≠ a lack of notability. GNG appears to be met. Mjroots (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: The Aviation Project's own accident task force's criteria states that: The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport so this article is entirely appropriate and justifiable as suitable for its own stand-alone article. An aircraft that drops and engine, catches on fire and is destroyed is a pretty notable event whether carrying cargo or passengers, and in terms of Irish aviation, especially related with Shannon Airport, which at that time the last port of call before the long trans-Atlantic flight, this is notable for the Ireland project and Shannon and is suitably sourced. The nominator should withdraw this instead of pushing deletion. There are numerous non-notable, unsourced and trivial articles that should probably be deleted long before this. ww2censor (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The criteria quoted from WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents applies to whether the accident should be listed in an article about the aircraft, airline, or airport. However, it also says, "By consensus this should not be used to determine whether a stand-alone article should exist or not." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * However, it is guidance, otherwise, what is the point or use of having an essay of this kind in the first place? Absolutely none in my opinion, so delete it. ww2censor (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , when you say "delete it", what is "it"? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The essay WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents you referenced in your previous post. ww2censor (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to the list of DC-6 accidents, where it is not yet mentioned. It appears to me this does not need a stand-alone article - there isn't a lot of content and more importantly there is a lack of significant coverage to satisfy the GNG threshold. The sources for the article are a database of Pan Am aircraft; a database aiming to include all airliner accidents in history; a contemporary newspaper article; and a single page of a 270-page book that apparently "Lists all known crashes with an Irish connection within Ireland and outside of Ireland", or in other words, another database. There have been 185 DC-6 hull losses out of 704 built, just over 26%; not as good as the DC-7 and not as bad as the DC-4. As for the accident task force criteria, those have been thoroughly discredited in AfD discussions over the years, such that now its main criterion is that the subject meets the GNG and everything else amounts to guidelines regarding in how many different places (airport article, aircraft type article etc.) information about a crash might be placed. YSSYguy (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * If you are going to complain about lack of reasonable, not even reliable sources, let me point out that there are several stand-alone article that rely significantly or even solely on the aviation-safety.net website in 1959 alone, such as Ariana Afghan Airlines Flight 202 to mention just one. Many other stand-alone articles use that source in addition to one or two others that are just a vilid as those I have used to justify their notability. And, BTW, you may want to dismiss out-of-hand the use of the entry from a 270-book which happens to be the most highly researched and specialised book on Irish airmail related accidents and incidents ever produced by the world's expert on the topic who has researched this for about 30 years. The aviation-safety.net mentions two other sources that I have not been able to find anywhere online but if you can find FAA-Daily Mechanical Report no. D 150 (03.08.1959) and ICAO Accident Digest Circular 62-AN/57 which seem like important documents, I will appreciate it. ww2censor (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Who's complaining? As for the other articles, perhaps nobody has opened a deletion discussion about them yet; anyway, I assess every article for which I contribute at an AfD discussion on its individual merits. The sources are reliable, but they do not constitute significant coverage - I already knew the book by Vogt was meticulously researched when I posted above, but with one page out of 270 dealing with this crash, it just cannot and does not constitute significant coverage. The other two contemporary documents would not constitute significant coverage either, I see bulletins (which is what they are) of that nature all the time in my job and they just give a brief account of safety-related events. YSSYguy (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of accidents and incidents involving the Douglas DC-6. A cargo flight crash with no human fatalities doesn't merit an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per ww2censor and accident task force's criteria, a similar level incident to British Airways Flight 2276.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The existence of another Wikipedia article about a different event involving a different type of aircraft in a different year when airliner accidents are much less common is not a reason to keep this article; and you have misread the accident task force's criteria, which do not constitute reasons for creating an article - "This essay includes generally accepted criteria for when to add mention of aircraft accidents to articles about airports, airlines and aircraft type articles. By consensus this should not be used to determine whether a stand-alone article should exist or not." YSSYguy (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete not a particularly noteworthy non-fatal cargo flight accident that should be listed List of accidents and incidents involving the Douglas DC-6 but doesnt need a stand-alone article. A non-fatal piston-engined accident was fairly common and would not stand-out in the 1950s and would be lucky to get a mention in the news. MilborneOne (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was mentioned in the news, having been picked up by UPI per one of the sources, and I'm certain, if I had access to some contemporary Irish or British newspapers, it would be mentioned there too. I have requests out for additional sources but likely will not get that until next month when I meet these people in person. ww2censor (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly cant find it in the London Times, I would also argue a brief mention in the news at the time of the event still doesnt make the accident noteworthy, it still fails on being a non-fatal cargo flight with piston-engined aircraft, we have a fair number of fatal accidents to cargo aircraft that have not been considered to be noteworthy for an article so we have lists of accidents and incidents to different aircraft types to capture hull-losses that are not noteworthy for a stand-alone accident which is were this should be. MilborneOne (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per Mjroots and Ww2censor comments above. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was debating (to myself) just what was "serious" hull damage when I looked at this crash - where the plane was destroyed. Whatever "serious" is, I am sure complete destruction of the plane meets that criteria. Ifnord (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2017 (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.