Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UPS Airlines Flight 1354


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

UPS Airlines Flight 1354

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails the WP:NOT inclusion policy and WP:EVENT guideline as having no lasting significance. While this air crash received news coverage because it was a newsworthy event, the crash it self has no lasting significance. There is no hint that there will be any changes to aircraft or airline procedures as a result of this, there will be a routine report produced by the air-crash investigators but unless anything unusual comes out of that it is already adequately covered in UPS Airlines a redirect as per WP:CHEAP is appropriate.  LGA talk  edits   08:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "having no lasting significance" - Where do you know that from? Are you an NTSB investigator who has access to an unpublished preliminary report? You never know whether a crash has lasting significance until a final report is published. Period. FonEengIneeR7 (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Then a redirect is sufficient until after the final report is published and shows that there is lasting significance. It is not WP practice to create articles on subject on the off chance at some later point they may become notable.  LGA talk  edits   09:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, basically a combination of WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. We don't go crystal ball gazing and creating articles about events that might one day be notable. If a report is published and, as a result, the event passes WP:EVENT, then we create an article. Someone jumped the gun, that's all. Stalwart 111  09:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to have this completely backwards. Your supposition here that the eventual NTSB report may not show anything "significant" is highly dubious and unsupported speculation. Every total hull loss flight operation crash of a major air carrier (fatal or not) is a "significant" accident and therefore "notable". If they are not then why were the WP entries each of which were started within hours of when the accidents happened for such crashes as Swissair Flight 111 (229 fatalities) near St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia, Canada, Red Wings Airlines Flight 9268 (5 fatalities) at Vnukovo International Airport, Moscow, Russia, FedEx Express Flight 80 (2 fatalities) at Narita Airport in Tokyo, FedEx Express Flight 14 (no fatalities) at Liberty Airport in Newark, NJ, or US Airways Flight 1549 (no fatalities) in the Hudson (North) River in New York City, and many more never proposed for deletion by any editor (including yourself) on the basis that because no report had yet been released it is not yet known whether or not they "might one day be notable"? Centpacrr (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. That members of a particular WikiProject feel the need to report every air crash withinn hours of their occurance does not mean those events pass WP:EVENT or aren't subject to WP:NOTNEWS. That's like WikiProject Roads creating articles for every fatal multi-vehicle accident or WikiProject Law Enforcement creating articles for ever officer-involved shooting before the relevant internal reports. That entire effort is contrary to WP:NOT and the fact that some of the articles have survived is irrelevent. The keep !voters here are speculating that the subject might one day be notable ahead of a report that might allow this to pass WP:EVENT. If it does, that's when we cover it here, not the other way around. Perhaps we need to blue-link WP:NOTAIRLINEINDUSTRYMAGAZINE as a redirect to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Stalwart 111  22:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That may be your personal view or interpretation of how you would like things to be, but as demonstrated by the WP entries I mentioned above and dozens of others relating to specific aviation accidents and those about many other developing "current event" topics, that is clearly not the practice on Wikipedia which is replete literally thousands of examples of such entries. A review of the traffic generated by these articles also reveals that they have among the highest page views on the project. (US Airways 1549, for instance, has had more then 110,000 page views in just the last 90 days.)


 * You are also comparing apples and oranges with your examples of multi-vehicle road accidents which happen many times daily all over the US and the world whereas hull loss operational major air carrier accidents (especially with fatalities) are comparatively extremely rare. There were only two (including this one) such accidents in the US this year, none in 2010, 2011 and 2012, and one in early 2009. With some 45,000,000+ commercial air carrier operations in the US over that period this represents a rate for this type of accident of 0.0000006% which alone makes each such accident "notable". Centpacrr (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not my "personal view", WP:NOT is a policy. WP:AIRCRASH is "advice" (not even a guideline) created by WikiProject members which is contrary to policy. My example is not "apples and oranges" either - WP:AIRCRASH suggests that any airline or large civil aircraft crash fatal to humans is notable. Uniqueness is irrelevant with such non-policy arbitrary criteria. You claim these are "extremely rare" but suggest there are "thousands" of similar articles that justify the existence of this one. That's what makes "other stuff" arguments so weak while policy is pretty clear. Again, there is every chance this subject might be notable in the future, but it isn't now because anything substantiating a pass against WP:EVENT is pure crystal-ball gazing. Uniqueness and notability are not the same thing. Stalwart 111  00:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read my comment above again. I did not say thousands of articles about "aviation accidents", but included all of the "many other developing 'current event' topics" with similar articles on WP (and there are hundreds of such other topics) that would fit an overbroad interpretation of WP:NOT as you wish to apply it to this instant case. A very small number of that group of thousands or entries are about major air carrier operational hull loss accidents which the miniscule accident rate (0.0000006% for the US) I noted would indicate. Over time, however, many of these aviation accident entries also have high ongoing page view rates, even some such as US Air 1549 with no fatalities and very few injuries at all. The circumstances of the UPS accident has sufficient elements to make it worthy of an entry especially in that it is one of only three fatal major air carrier accidents to have occurred in the US out of over 45,000,000 operations flown during a period of more than four-and-a-half years. That alone makes it notable. That you think it is not is purely a subjective view on your part to which you are certainly personally entitled, but that alone does not constitute consensus to delete it. Centpacrr (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's a pretty simple interpretation of WP:NOT given this article is probably in breach of 3-4 different sections of that policy. Again, uniqueness or rarity are not the same thing as notability. A WikiProject's support for its own advice is also not "consensus" and you're yet to put forward a policy-based reason for keeping this article. Stalwart 111  01:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your interpretation of WP:NOT as it applies to this article for the reasons I have already given herein. Additional reasons to retain it are the years of demonstrated WP practice and precedent set by community consensus of hosting many similar articles on hull loss major air carrier accidents and the history of how they were developed, the clear importance of the topic of maintaining safe and efficient domestic and international commercial aviation to the economy of the US and the world as a mode of transportation for both people and freight, the relation of this accident to the topic of improving aviation safety, the long standing significant level of traffic (page views) such similar WP entries attract to WP, and a variety of other facts and elements that make this accident sufficiently notable to have this short but continually growing article. With respect, however, you have given no substantive reasons to delete it other then a nonsepcific claim that it "is probably in breach of 3-4 different sections" of policy without any reference whatsoever to what they are, why they are in breach, or to the article's actual substance. Centpacrr (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I cited WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL in my original comment above and provided context. But I also think there are elements of WP:NOTCASE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY because it's not our job (or goal) to provide aviation disaster case histories or a directory of aviation disasters. We aim to provide coverage of notable events - that is, those events that meet the criteria at WP:EVENT. WP:BREAKING makes it very clear that this article probably shouldn't have been created when it was, as I suggested above. Stalwart 111  03:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Irrespective of what you claim above, in practice and by demonstrable long standing precedent that's just not the way WP appears to have ever worked with regard to entries about major air carrier operational hull loss accidents such as this one. There are, by the way, currently 1,259 other similar aviation accident articles on WP pretty much all of which would likely also violate the "policies" you espouse if ever applied to them in the way you propose. Centpacrr (talk) 04:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably. Stalwart 111  09:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Since being created on August 14, 2013 this entry has garnered some 38,000 page views on the English WP and sister entries also exist of it on three other Wikiprojects: French, Japanese, and Arabic. Centpacrr (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Centpacrr, please have a look at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Other Wikis may have different notability guidelines, or articles in other languages may in fact be translations from the English one. Page views do not establish notability, either: A topic may be popular and nevertheless be considered unencyclopedic because of WP:NOT.--FoxyOrange (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See my further comments below. Centpacrr (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - per commentary above. Stalwart 111  09:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The "routine report" (airliner/cargo crashes are sufficiently rare and circumstantial for reports to be anything but "routine") will almost certainly contain a number of safety recommendations. Safety recommendations do have a lasting significance; sometimes minor, sometimes major. — Lfdder (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep To early to tell whether this will result in changes, but most likely will. As per redirecting it to UPS Airlines, it will lead to a already lengthy page. Should also be kept because, it was a loss of human lives, hull loss, and temporarily shut down an airport. I mean whats the difference here with Asiana Airlines Flight 214, 3 people lost their lives in that one and it was a hull loss, and it temporarily shut down SFO. So we need to wait until this investigation is over and we need to see if it resulted in changes. (Which it most likely will) as per WP:AIRCRASH. Also, why do you even want to delete it so bad? It is a great article.
 * — Martinillo (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This accident seems every bit as significant as many other similar total hull loss major freight air carrier fatal accidents. It will take a year or more before the NTSB report is completed, a probable cause is determined, and safety recommendations are promulgated. To claim that "the crash itself has no lasting significance" is purely empty speculation on the part of the deletion proposer. As every accident is different, each has "significance" and lessons to teach to improve aviation safety. There is no such thing as a "routine" NTSB report, and the speculative claim that there is "no hint that there will be any changes to aircraft or airline procedures as a result of this accident" made above is completely unsupported. Centpacrr (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:AIRCRASH, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:TOOSOON. Keep !votes above seem to boil down to WP:ITSNOTABLE. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to UPS Airlines, because WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS are not met. We can only take into account what information is currently available, and should refrain from speculate about possible future developments (read WP:CRYSTAL if you are interested in further information on that matter). This aviation accident has received media coverage only during its immediate aftermath, which shows that there has not been any lasting significance. The fact that there is an ongoing NTSB investigation must not be used as an argument for alleged notability, because (as it has been pointed out above) any aviation incident produces some kind of response by the regulatory authorities. The existence of such a report can therefore be considered routine, and should not be used as sole argument to establish notability.


 * As a side note, I would like to suggest that WP:AIRCRASH be deleted: It's a piece of advice for contributors of one Wikipedia Project, so to speak for "aviation accident fanboys". WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS is all we need to determine notability of such events, and the vexed question whether there has been "a change in procedures, regulations or process" is frequently (ab)used to push the opinion that any such accodent was notable, regardless of its actual media coverage.--FoxyOrange (talk) 08:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Air crashes are not inherently notable and I can't think of a single other notability guideline (though it is "advice", not a guideline) that includes human fatality as an arbitrary notability criteria. Stalwart 111  09:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Although aircraft accidents are happily rare today there have been a great many recorded transportation accidents in total. Wikipedia does not set out to cover them nor is it structured to do so. Clearly it needs to cover some, and I respectfully disagree with the view that the decision should simply be made on the extent of media (usually web and especially US) coverage which tends to distort WP in so many areas. At the moment, I see nothing about the accident to indicate that it is one that should be in, either in the known facts or WP policy. --AJHingston (talk) 10:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:EVENT, and I strongly disagree with the previous argument: that article does not simply reflect an exagerated media coverage. Possibly coverage of that accident has taken more resonance because of the short interval of time that separated the Asiana Airlines Flight 214 accident from it, and perhaps more attention I'm meaning care from some commentators but it has not been inflated. Any airliner crashing the way UPS Airlines 1354 did would have caused that same shock amongst "aviation accident fanboys" in any circumstances, not to mention the professionals, and receive the same kind of media coverage. --Askedonty (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - When an aircraft of this type, which has variants that are passenger carriers which carry millions of people each year, has such a catastrophic failure with a complete hull loss and loss of live, it most certainly needs to be studied and analyzed for years to come as to prevent such a tragedy from occurring again. That is clear "lasting significance." --Oakshade (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)  Just to clarify, this easily meets WP:GNG and WP:EVENT with very significant coverage given to it along with meeting the non-guideline WP:AIRCRASH as there was a loss of life and a complete (and catastrophic) hull loss which has lasting significance. --Oakshade (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds a lot to me like WP:ITSNOTABLE. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I find the "having no lasting significance" argument as a subjective WP:ITSNOTABLE opinion simply based on personal belief.--Oakshade (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Lasting significance" is not really subjective and its fairly easy to establish - just provide the WP:RS that give the event significant lasting coverage (beyond the few days or weeks immediately after the event). A personal opinion that something "needs be studied [...] for years to come" isn't really proof of lasting significance. If you can show reliable sources that suggest as much, it might be a different story. Stalwart 111  05:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As I gather from your userpage and posts that you do not reside in the United States but instead in the UK or some other Commonwealth country, it appears that you are not familiar with the nature and importance of the type of highly complex year-or-more long accident investigation currently being conducted by the NTSB into this fatal UPS crash of a type and model of commercial twin-jet aircraft (Air Bus A300-600) which is also operated by dozens of air carriers worldwide, and the significance to international air safety and commercial aviation of all such investigations in finding these accidents probable causes and in making recommendations based thereon to help prevent future such crashes.


 * The results of these investigations and recommendations include leading to the issuance of ADs, changes in FARs regarding such areas as aircrew training and flight checks, rest, cockpit coordination, ATC, aircraft systems, maintenance, and many other factors. In the instant case, the NTSB must determine why this aircraft crashed 1000m short of the the runway threshold during what appeared to otherwise be a normal approach. No matter what is found in the NTSB investigation of UPS 1354, the report will contain significant and notable information which will advance aviation safety and be used by all operators of this and similar types of aircraft in conducting future operations more safely. (As a pilot myself for more than fifty years I can personally attest to the value of what the NTSB does in advancing air safety.) As this information is released to the public it will be added to this article as such material has been used in the past in the development of the other 1,259 similar aviation accident articles that current exist on WP. Centpacrr (talk) 07:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ha ha, yes, I'm from Australia (so you were close!) and in fact have had quite a bit to do (in a professional capacity) with our own ATSB. What you're saying is quite likely right and your NTSB may very well write a report along the very same lines as you have suggested it will. But it hasn't yet and until it does, all we have to go on is news coverage of the crash and our own private speculation about how significantly this may be viewed in the future. You seem to be making an argument that this will most likely be notable in the future and I'm telling you, you may well be right. That's why I have suggested (from the start) that this may well be a matter of WP:TOOSOON and that WP:BREAKING applies to cases like this. We have a bizarre culture here on WP that encourages WikiProjects to write about everything that happens in their topic area as soon as it happens. But Wikipedia is not the New York Times and we don't set out to be. It's the NYT's job to write about things as they happen. It's the NTSB's job to write about things after they have happened and its our job to consider both of those things and determine if the event has lasting significance enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The simple fact of the matter is that this article probably shouldn't have been created when it was and it likely wouldn't have been were it not for poorly crafted advice like WP:AIRCRASH. Stalwart 111  10:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * With respect, I really couldn't disagree more with your approach here to the notability and/or significance of this accident. I doubt very much if this discussion would have ever arisen if this had been a passenger as opposed to air freight operation and there had been 150 fatalities instead of "just" two aircrew members which would have driven general "news coverage" and "perceived" significance by the general public in a very different direction. I am quite sure that in that case its "notability" would have never even been questioned here. However the the number of souls on board or casualties is irrelevant to its true significance, either short term or long. What is relevant is the accident's relationship to and impact on aviation safety in general, and specifically on international air carrier operation of this and similar types of commercial aircraft. As the details of that become increasing clear over time with both the ongoing release of interim reports as well as next year sometime when the final report with a probable cause, conclusions, and recommendations are released. As that happens the article will continue to be developed to reflect what is learned and how it impacts commercial aviation operations and safety.


 * As I pointed out earlier, this is how a very large percentage of the 1,259 other aviation accident articles currently existing on WP have been developed over time. As a group they have continued to well serve the project's readership as a reliable "go to" reference source in the important area of aviation safety. The fact that this article has already had more than 38,000 page views in the six weeks since the accident on August 14 and the article's creation immediately thereafter is proof of UPS #1354's notability as both an "event" and to aviation safety. Centpacrr (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we're going around in circles a bit. Article views, fatalities, the existence of other similarly incorrectly-developed articles and speculative impact on industry are not notability criteria. We can't create articles based on what we believe a subject's eventual impact might be. To substantiate that impact we need sources for verification. Without the NTSB report, we have none. You clearly disagree with the policies and guidelines I've cited, or at least my interpretation of them, as do the members of the Aviation WikiProject who created WP:AIRCRASH and that's fine. We're now getting into arguments to avoid territory and there's no point getting bogged down in a debate that should probably be had at MFD with regard to that "advice". I think we've exposed a fundamental flaw in the way a particular project approaches event notability, based on some pretty flawed advice. It's not fair to ask you to defend that effort with this article as a test case. I'll take a step back and consider WP:AIRCRASH in its own right after this AFD ends. Stalwart 111  15:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not agree that there is any "fundamental flaw" in WP:AIRCRASH for the reasons I have stated above (which I incorporate herein by reference) and because of the nature of the impact that the investigations of all such hull loss operational air carrier accidents have in the improvement of aviation safety and future accident prevention in commercial aviation. By the very nature of major NTSB investigations of such commercial air carrier accidents, the "answers" and new safety recommendations do not come until a final NTSB report is issued which often a year or more after the accident. That does in any way cause the accident itself to not be "notable" until that time the report is issued. Any such accident that becomes subject to this level of NTSB investigation is a notable accident on its face. The fact that there is not continuous new "news" coverage in the interim in no way indicates that the crash itself was not a notable aviation safety event, it just means that there is nothing "new" to report until the NTSB holds its public hearings and then later issues its final report and safety recommendations. Centpacrr (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - The fact that the aircraft was on a cargo flight does not, IMHO, reduce the notability of this accident. Whilst a large number of deaths adds weight to the case for notability, a low number or lack of deaths does not necessarily detract from the case. Percentage-wise, this was a 100% fatality rate. Per precedent, hull loss accidents generally are notable enough to sustain articles subject to WP:V via WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. From news accounts and trade press analysis, crew fatigue, and therefore, industry-wide policies have been named as contributing factors. This is of course grounds enough to keep the article.  Dear Nom, how in the hell is Wikipedia going to be improved by deleting this article? --Mareklug talk 14:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Where are the reliable sources that support that claim, or is it just more speculation ? WP is not served by having articles on news (see WikiNews for that) or based on speculation that's why this should not be a stand alone article.  LGA talk  edits   03:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/america-tonight-blog/2013/8/14/ex-ntsb-chief-faashouldrethinkpilotfatiguerulesafteralacrash.html  You could have found it yourself with a simple google search.  That you did not bother and still press this inane AfD only discloses your meritless agenda.  --Mareklug talk 21:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Which offers nothing but more speculation as to the cause. WP does not deal in speculation, if there is something concrete to analyse then we do it. If the union has an issue with the UPS staff roster then cover it in the UPS article.  LGA talk  edits   07:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently, sir or madame, you don't have even the slightest understanding or appreciation of how this and the 1,259 other WP articles relating to hull loss operational commercial air carrier aviation accidents are and have always been created and developed on Wikipedia since the initiation of the project. Articles about newly occurring accidents are virtually always started immediately after the accident happens (often within hours) and then are continually expanded and developed as more information becomes publicly available, is published in news media, and/or is released by the NTSB and other official sources. The official accident investigation, however, is a careful and exhaustive process. The NTSB sometimes issues interim statements and also generally holds public hearings, but the final report including its findings, determination of the probably cause(s), and the promulgation of safety recommendations almost always takes a year or more to be completed, adopted by the Board, and released to the public. When this happens that information is then added to the article. (See also my reply to this user on this same subject in a thread located on my user talk page here.)


 * This is the way the commercial aviation accident articles have always been created and developed on WP. With respect then, taking a position that no such article should ever appear on WP until after the NTSB report is issued which can take a year (and sometimes two years) or more is just absurd. For that reason nominating this article for deletion flies in the face of long standing precedent and practice on WP, the established community consensus of how aviation accident articles are created and developed, and just wastes the time of your fellow WP volunteer contributors. Centpacrr (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe the record in excess of eight years. Are we seriously to be expected to wait that long before writing articles? No, the system we have works fine, the article gets written, it goes to AFD and is debated. The majority survive, a few don't. Disappointing as this is for an editor who has created an article and put work into it, is is something that comes with the territory, and has to be accepted. Mjroots (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Appears to fail WP:EVENT as the nominator noted -- the event has, presently, no evidence of a LASTING effect, and the news coverage does not appear to be INDEPTH, or have PERSISTENCE. I don't see why the topic can't receive an encyclopedic treatment in the main UPS Airlines article. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * With respect, the "persistence" of mass media coverage of this accident has absolutely nothing to do with its "lasting significance". As there were only two fatalities (the aircrew) which were the only two souls on board, it would be of little "lasting" interest to the general press. If an "identical" accident had happened to a passenger flight with many more fatalities, however, the coverage in the "popular" press would have been much greater and lasted much longer. The lasting significance of this and similar accidents, however, has to do with the factors relating to their impact on accident prevention and aviation safety based on what is (or will be learned from their probably cause(s). Any major air carrier hull loss accident such as this one is significant "on its face" irrespective of its transient "news media coverage" as this is a category and type of aircraft (AirBus A300) still flown by many passenger and freight air carriers world wide. As such the accident is the subject of a major NTSB accident investigation which is likely to take a year or more to complete before it can provide those answers. Thus to claim that there is "no evidence of lasting effect" is both unsupported speculation and an indication of a fundamental misunderstanding of how the process of improvement of flight safety and accident prevention works. Centpacrr (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * To Darkwind: the news coverage missing INDEPTH is the superficial view and it's only apparently so. If you compare with similar cases e.g. Asiana Airlines Flight 214 you may note that a notable volume of coverage in the last depend on the fact that many anecdotal ( or not anecdotal ) elements are therein expanded in part because a) a greater number of people where in situ concerned; b) many survivors implies the same number of witnesses. Dealing with a volume of various information that article is from then on ( from an editorial point of vue ) in position to expand views of the airfield as it does for example. From there it's straightforward to extending the views toward traffic considerations. Moreover the technical causes of the accident had been obvious from the second or third day after the event as the pilot survived the crash, which does not make the event less notable. Back to UPS 1354, much less information is available from the event itself, and the point regarding traffic has to be waited upon until the NTSB release. This does not relate to INDEPTH, but to IN WIDTH. Depth will be established by the NTSB. Remains PERSISTENCE: a limited scope of available information suggests its interest will early near void as it decreases. That is still only judging the book by the cover. It is no the opinion in the industry. After that link provided by Mareklug above: aljazeera etc;, if you exclude considerations related to UPS or FedEx, which are speculations, this crash is still considered as one of the three major U.S. incidents in the period. Noone is requesting an article dedicated to the Southwest Airlines plane. --Askedonty (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * They did, but it was deleted following Articles for deletion/Southwest Airlines Flight 345.  LGA talk  edits   09:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Southwest 345 at LaGuardia was a very different event in character and scope to UPS 1354. The LGA accident was a "hard landing", non-hull loss (i.e. airframe not written off) event without serious injury (nine minor injuries) the main cause of which has already been determined to be pilot, not mechanical error with the captain having now already been dismissed by the carrier. For that reason retention of a separate article for SWA 345 garnered virtually no support from the community whereas that is not the case with UPS 1354 which has very considerable support for retention. Centpacrr (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Selective merge to UPS Airlines, per WP:EFFECT. This would retain the content for later expansion as a standalone article if/when notability is clearer. -- Trevj (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As one of only two major air carrier hull loss fatal accidents in the US since early 2009 out of some 45,000,000+ commercial air carrier operations in the US over that period (a rate for this type of accident of 0.0000006%) alone makes this and any other such accident "notable" on its face. Also it does violate the letter of WP:EFFECT which states "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." As this accident is now the subject of a major NTSB and international investigation (the airframe was built in Europe) which will take a year or more to complete, any claim that it has "no lasting significance" or that "there is no hint that there will be any changes to aircraft or airline procedures as a result" is both speculative and premature. Centpacrr (talk) 12:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I know from first hand experience how frustrating it can be if community consensus is that a recent event isn't deemed notable. However, it's worth remembering that consensus can change, especially after the passing of weeks/months. This is why I think that a redirect is the most appropriate course of action in this case... in fact, per WP:BEFORE. -- Trevj (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * With the majority of those already commenting above supporting retention (Keep or Strong Keep), it hardly seems that any level of community consensus to delete this article has been achieved. Centpacrr (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I should remind you that this is WP:NOTAVOTE and while there are a number of editors expressing a preference for keeping this article, not a single one has quoted a RS that demonstrates it meets the inclusion policy.  LGA talk <sup style="margin-left:-4ex"> edits   20:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And beyond WP:NOTAVOTE, 6 keeps against 5 deletes and two merge/redirects isn't even a numerical majority, let alone consensus. Add to that the lack of policy-based arguments and "per WP:AIRCRASH" opinions and the keep arguments aren't looking very strong at all. Stalwart 111  23:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually a majority of keep votes do cite policy. WP:AIRCRASH isn't a policy let alone a guideline. Most delete votes don't cite policy but just the non-guideline WP:AIRCRASH.  There's certainly not a consensus to delete this per policy or otherwise.  --Oakshade (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Worth correcting you here WP:AIRCRASH is not a policy, it is not even a guideline, it is a projects own advice. As for your claim "Most delete votes don't cite policy", think you need to check at the top of the WP:NOTNEWS page and you will see that it is a policy.  LGA <sub style="color:#8B0000;">talk <sup style="margin-left:-4ex"> edits   02:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * For all the reasons I stated above in my multiple postings in this thread and the precedents set by the vast majority of the other 1,259 existing aviation accident articles on WP, I cannot accept the narrow interpretations of "policy" of LGA and Stalwart as they may be applied to this case. It would seem that in order to delete an article that the consensus to do so must be clear and convincing which is certainly not the case here. Centpacrr (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not a narrow interpretation of policy, policy is very clear "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events" and WP:EVENT list a number of tests to indicate that enduring notability for events; the first "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable" - the article (let alone sources) makes no claim that this event acted as a precedent or catalyst for anything. Second test "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group" again the article makes no such claim (nor do any of the sources). Thirdly "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable." where is the in-depth coverage here, where is the coverage analysing the event ? none provided either here or at the article. Fourth "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle." all but one source from within 24 hours of the event, and the one that was later is a report on a routine NTSB press release. So it is not a narrow interpretation of policy, unless you or some one else can show that this event is right now notable as per WP:NEVENT the relevant guideline it should be deleted or redirected until such time as it clearly does.  LGA <sub style="color:#8B0000;">talk <sup style="margin-left:-4ex"> edits   04:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep A fatal crash of a widebody aircraft is definitely notable; a crash of this nature in the developed world is a significant occurrence, regardless of whether it was a passenger or freight airline. Wikipedia contains lots of articles about comparable (in terms on notability) crashes, so I believe that WP:COMMONSENSE applies, and as it states, '[Common sense] is above any policy.' OakleighPark (talk) 08:03, 12 October 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.