Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UPS Airlines Flight 6


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

UPS Airlines Flight 6
Parallel AFD discussions: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Per NOTNEWS. There have been so many recent air crashes and not all of them seem to be significant. Article received routine news coverage and this is not an indication of notability, but newsworthiness, the two not being interchangeable. — Mike moral  ♪♫  00:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep-- Juanantz 19:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanantz (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia requires consensus, not votes. What is your rationale behind the keep vote? — Mike moral  ♪♫  16:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Definitely keep. This crash will have far reaching significance in the realm of air safety. Already the fifth most read forum on the professional pilots PPRUNE site, it points to the failure of in-flight fire safety measures. It will be as significant as Swissair flight 111 in the history of in-flight fire. The loss of life and size of aircraft are not what makes this accident significant. It's important because a modern transport type aircraft was brought down by heavy smoke in the cockpit. The plane was likely undamaged by the fire, but the pilots couldn't see to fly it. That is a big safety issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brookstcollins (talk • contribs) 09:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This accident will serve as a textbook case in the future. Never has there been this type of accident in a nearly state of art aircraft.  We will learn wether or not systems such as fire detection and surpression, as well as the types of masks, goggles, and training the crew were given could have been better?
 * Note - this !vote was added by in this edit at 21:35, 5 September 2010. The closing editor has discretion on whether or not it merits consideration. Mjroots (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only remotely historically significant aspect appears to be that it is the first fatal/serious accident for UPS (although bizarrly, the news coverage doesn't seem to even say that, so maybe it isn't?). And per the WP:AVIATION essay, without any other defining characteristics, it does not warrant coverage outside of their article. Other than that, I agree with the nom that, for a deadly 747 aircrash, the coverage is very much as could be expected, which is as the nominator points out, is absolutely not an indication of lasting notability, per WP:EVENT, which is of course, the consensus backed Wikipedia Guideline extending the interpretation of WP:GNG and WP:NOT for specific advice on treatment of current events just like this.... MickMacNee (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Reference found for first fatal for UPS Airlines and info added to article. Mjroots (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per my nomination rationale on Articles for deletion/United Parcel Service Flight 6, which I've now withdrawn in favour of this AFD. Strange Passerby (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Mentioned before was the fact that accidents happen on a routine basis and therefore does not qualify for notability. If this is the case then why is there around 20 pages covering air accidents? Are we planning to delete all these as well? Also mentioned before was the fact that 747's rarely ever crash. Fattyjwoods  Push my button 03:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. See also WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because other such articles exist is not good reason for keeping this one. Strange Passerby (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * While that is broadly true, results of previous AFDs and DRVs can signal a trend. There are instances where people can appropriately use WP:OTHERSTUFF as a proper rationale. The WP:OTHERSTUFF page explains how this can be the case. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - An incident of this visibility will get beyond the "Article received routine news coverage and this is not an indication of notability, but newsworthiness, the two not being interchangeable." - An accident report will happen. News coverage will continue to cover the developments regarding the investigation. The air accident articles that get deleted are typically minor turbulence incidents or incidents that do not result in extensive reports. Two deaths and a totaling of the aircraft will result in continued, notability proving news coverage. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. See also WP:CRYSTAL - just how can you be so sure that international news coverage will "continue to cover ... the investigation"? There's no way of telling. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; WP:EVENT states "It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer as early coverage may lack perspective and be subject to factual errors. Many articles on events are created in anticipation of their notability. Anticipation is the creation of an article on a recent event with the expectation that it will meet inclusion guidelines, before the duration of coverage or any lasting effect is certain." This appears to be the case here. There is no proof that the eventual investigation's findings will be significant enough to meet inclusion guidelines. Strange Passerby (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. "This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Full investigations have not been carried through yet. So I encourage that tis article in the meantime not be deleted. Fattyjwoods  Push my button 04:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is a way of telling. Study previous aviation accidents and their media coverage. El Al Flight 1862 (another cargo flight), a cargo 747 which crashed, had the same cycle of events. FedEx Express Flight 80 will have the same cycle of events. So did other accidents with passenger airliners (Air France Flight 447, TWA Flight 800, etc.) The reports almost always happen. The constant and lingering coverage almost always happens. "Full investigations have not been carried through yet." but an investigation will happen. The only thing WP:CRYSTALBALL covers is "what is the cause?" We won't know that until the investigation concludes. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A hull-loss accident involving a very large modern aircraft such as the Boeing 747-400 should be notable enough to sustain an article on Wikipedia. Adding to the notability is the fact that it is the first fatal accident suffered by UPS Airlines. As others have pointed out, an investigation is taking place. Expect an interim report with about a month. The final report will take 1 - 2 years. The only part of WP:CRYSTAL that would be breached is if a cause was speculated upon. There seem to be more air crashes this year because there are. 10 year average is 23 crashes with 616 fatalities. So far in 2010, there have been 21 crashes with 773 fatalities, so it is a worse than average year (Aviation Safety Network). Mjroots (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Major operator, crew deaths, large aircraft hull loss, UPS's first major accident per cited and unchallenged source), NTSB involment = Lasting news coverage = Notability. - BilCat (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - per BilCat. Mathmo Talk 07:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep-per WhisperToMe, MjRoots, and BilCat. First, it's only been less than 48 hours since the incident, so the media coverage is all there really is (investigations will be ongoing for a long time).  Second, and this is been stated several times before, hull losses involving 747s (one of the most-produced jet airliners) are fairly rare; this also involves an airline (UPS Airlines) that previously had not had a crew or passenger fatality.  While the airline has had a couple of major incidents, as shown in a section of their article, this accident is noteworthy enough of its own space.  As things evolve, this article can be edited to rely less on the media coverage itself and more on the facts; the facts just have not emerged yet.--SteveCof00 (talk) 09:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Huge aircraft, important airline, scheduled flight, deaths, notable enough. ( G a  b  i  n  h  o >:) 10:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC))
 * Keep. It is not just "routine news coverage" as defined in WP:ROUTINE. Routine news coverage for a plane crash would just be a short notice that a plane has crashed, with some basic facts about the flight, number of deaths etc. (like the typical coverage after crashes of small GA planes in local newspapers). The widespread coverage in this case (Google news mentions >1300 articles) however includes comprehensive speculation about the cause, comparison to other crashes; there are already follow-up articles about the identification of the victims and discovery of a flight recorder as well as the beginning of an investigation, indicating that there will be further follow-up coverage. The crash is therefore at least "very likely to be notable" per WP:EVENT. --memset (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note WP:109PAPERS. So what if nearly every agency reported the crash? Notability is not newsworthiness, clear the crash was newsworthy, but is it really notable? Can we really determine if this crash will be significant still in one month? One year? A decade? How can we determine this two days after the event? I fail to see how. — Mike moral  ♪♫  18:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course we cannot know for sure now how significant the crash will be in a year, we have to guess this using the information available now. Waiting a year before creating articles about events like this, to see how notable they really are (as you seem to suggest), is nonsense, because even if the crash is still significant then, fewer people will care about it then and contribute to the article.
 * To claim that this crash is not notable and the article should be deleted, you have to explain why exactly it will not be significant in a year or decade. Just mentioning NOTNEWS is not enough.--memset (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And often even when a subject isn't necessarily in the news anymore, people write documentary TV programs about aviation disasters (such as Mayday and Seconds to Disaster) that discuss past accidents. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. This Afd shows exactly what the problem is with this apparent obsession in some editors with creating articles based on news coverage of aircrashes, and then claiming it is not a news article. Frankly, 'it is being investigated', is not, and never will be, something that will EVER make it into an aircrash notability guideline. Why? Because an investigation is a routine part of air crashes. People believing this fact makes this crash significant might as well be claiming that a single cinema release is evidence of automatic notability of a film (a concept which was roundly rejected years ago). How did that come about I hear you ask? Well, the people who know about films realised that a single cinema release is a routine aspect of making films, and they wrote, and stick to, their notabillity guideline with full realisation that the GNG is not a free pass to ignore WP:NOT, and specifically NOT#NEWS and NOT#INFO, and that in order to be notable, there must be something significant about the film's life cycle and existence, beyond the routine aspects.

And if people somehow think death or hull losses make any difference to this, it really doesn't. Every single instance of a fatal aircrash or hull loss is always investigate by a body like the NTSB, and will always get large amounts of news coverage, so if what people really want to say is, every fatal aircrash or hull loss is automatically notable, then just say it, and then that can be put into a proposed Guideline and people can try and get it approved, so it can actually be cited it as an indisputable non-policy violating fact in Afd's, without people having to bother to consider whether the accident or the investigation has to involve some kind of unusual or significant outcome or aspect, to take it beyond the routine.

And yes, you can even try and get support for the idea that 747's falling out of the sky it is so massively unusual or interesting that this should also always denote automatic notability, although having seen people argue that tiny island-hopping airliner falling out of the sky is also automatically significant, I don't see the point. Hopefully though any guideline will be a little more detailed and nuanced than 'huge plane=significant crash', but you get the idea I hope.

And then, if that gets done, everybody who sees these arguments as a blatant violation of NOT#NEWS and the constant creation of these articles as a blatant raping of Wikinews' mission, can just move on with their lives. Trying to pretend that all these routine things occuring, somehow always makes an accident historically significant, misses the point of the nomination by a country mile frankly, and when deconstructed, it really is simply just a vague wave to the GNG. And the GNG was categorically not written to greenlight the automatic inclusion of anything just based on getting lots of news coverage, because the GNG is a Guideline, and WP:NOT is core Policy. Which is something a lot of keepers always seem to dismiss in aircrash Afds. The EVENT Guideline was notionally written to reconcile the two for events, but for aircrahses, in my eyes, it is not working, as people are just reading small details of it, without undertsanding the big picture behind it. And no, this is not something IAR was written to cater for, it is a very normal aspect of the pedia, that is dealt with by truthfully recognising the contradiction, and redrafting the guidance, not continually ignoring existing policy and guidelines at Afd.

And another classic feature is that yet again in this Afd, even if there are guidelines, they are apparently ignorable pretty much all the time. The AVIATION essay, which has always been claimed to be an aircrash notability Guideline in progress, states very clearly that this being the 'first fatal crash for UPS' does not justify an article. That just gets ignored though in this case. Why? You tell me. I absolutley genuinely have no idea why this happens, or why some closing administrators seem to completely ignore it is happening.

At the end of the day, all people seem to want to do in these Afds in my eyes, is try to turn Wikipedia into a competitor for all the other resources that document aircrashes in detail, because I am pretty sure that no general encyclopoedia such as Brittanica would ever hold this much avi-crash cruft, for the historical record. All this does that I can see, is dilute Wikipedia into a resource that, for someone actually looking for genuinely significant aircrashes with proven historical relevance, is pretty much useless.

The cause behind this problem appears to me to be that a lot of people seem to want to interpret the word 'significant', as in historically significant, as meaning 'serious', as in serious enough to make the news. They are not the same. A big, fatal, crash, is serious, but truly historically significant? Well, the test I suppose is whether we have similar articles from the 1970s about crashes just like this, just becuase a couple of people died and it was a big plane and there was an investigation. I would say we don't, and the reason we are getting them now, is simply pure recentism. The fact that aircrashes are happening, and people dying, is a routine part of life. It was in the 70s, it is now. Frankly, when compared to the significance of the accidents of the 60s, 70s and 80s detailed in this list, a lot of the entries for the 2000s and beyond look like total news trivia. And that is why these Afd's are killing Wikipedia as a genuinely relevant encyclopoedia. MickMacNee (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Mjroots. yet another waste of time by an editor who doesn't seem to have read WP:NOTLAW--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a nice little piece of ABF right there. I wonder if any wandering admin is watching out for CIVIL violations in these Afds, as I have been assured is actually happening. MickMacNee (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Although it's ironic you want to cite BURO to claim this Afd is a waste of time. If these outcomes are so common, BURO makes it pretty clear that there should actually already be a Guideline somewhere to justify it, as the existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. However, I have looked high and low, and I have never once found a Guideline that even comes close to what Mjroots suggests makes a notable aircrash. So, you can either keep on running around making these kinds of afd votes displaying just how much contempt you have for people who don't follow your interpretation of existing policies, or you can try and write the Guideline you seem to think documents common practice and common sense for these aircrashes. Although I warn you, the folks at VPP are pretty hot on what BURO handily describes as the principles of policies, and very much realise that written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously unless there is a good reason they may be changed to reflect evolving consensus. MickMacNee (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment It's nice to know I "waste[d]" your time. Aren't you the one who to the effort to click "Edit" and time in the wikicode to say delete? So I don't know how I caused you to "waste your time." — Mike moral  ♪♫  18:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, pretty much per everyone who's pointed out hull loss, investigation, first fatal UPS crash, etc. C628 (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:AIRCRASH standards. Spikydan1 (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How exactly? A3? I don't see any other qualifying criteria. Not only is it an essay, it makes it pretty clear that if the only unusual aspect is the UPS first fatal accident angle per A3, then no, a separate article is not justified - If the accident or incident matches criteria only in this section, then coverage should normally be on the article about the aircraft or airline. MickMacNee (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. Articles for this should be at Wikinews, not here. We can't have an article for every single plane crash, should we? Diego Grez (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course we can't, but this (747 crashing + the fact its a UPS plane) isnt like every other plane crashes. And you would be surprised how many other articles on plane crashes we have, most havingless significance than this. Fattyjwoods  Push my button 02:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as only the second fatal accident in a 747-400, the last was ten years ago so not that common. If the investigation turns up nothing unusual or does not generate any airworthiness directives then perhaps it can be reconsidered for AfD then. MilborneOne (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and after the numerous comments putting this AFD into context, I am invoking WP:SNOWBALL. Bzuk (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment What/where is the rationale behind your keep !vote? — Mike moral  ♪♫  18:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Well referenced hull loss. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   18:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This is just a vote. — Mike moral  ♪♫  18:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Has WP:RS and may seem like a news, one time, event, but still passes WP:N in my opinion. I agree with Bzuk that this Afd is a really big snowball.  Pmedema (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Further to my earlier comment, this AFD has a snowball's chance..., the latest count is overwhelmingly in favour of Keep. Bzuk (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In this counting exercise of yours, ignoring your invalid double-vote of course, are you just counting people who have made valid votes, or just counting period, including even the bad arguments? And are you applying some sort of weight to people's opinions, or are you giving equal weight between people who have given an articulate rationale with reference to a policy they clearly understand, (or at least have conveyed enough information that you can accept their assertion in good faith), with those who have just turned up to serve up some acronyms or basic assertion. Have you ever read How to discuss an AfD? Are you absolutely certain this is a SNOW case, when nobody has even replied to valid challenges? Have you ever read WP:STEAM? Or WP:PI? Why haven't you even offered anyone any biscuits for turning up and commenting, even though it's apparently a lost cause? MickMacNee (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What? I gave my opinion (!voted) more then once in this Afd!? (not counting this comment...)  That would be done in human error, which I am capable of but in looking around, I don't quite see where you think I made such an error.  Pmedema (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was talking to Bzuk, hence the indentation. MickMacNee (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets WP:N, in that it has sufficient independent third party refs to establish notability, which is the deciding standard. - Ahunt (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Since seems to be speaking for me, I should comment. When I saw the article, I considered WP:NOTNEWS and what it says: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia" and I come to think, "Is this event notable enough for inclusion in its own article." Then I consider RECENTISM and its simple question, "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?" I find the answer to be no. Compare this crash to Capt. Sullenberger and his crash, I'm sure he and the crash will be remembered in ten years, unlike this crash. I thought an encyclopedia is supposed to put thing in a historical context, which I doubt can be found in the week of an incident, unless you can predict the future and tell me if people will be chatting about the article then. When I saw the article did I care about its length or the make or even the company? Not really. It's all irrelevant and all that matters is the "historical perspective." Plane crashes are routinely reported by many news agencies. Have you done a Google News search on "plane crash?" — Mike moral  ♪♫  16:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I count 15 keep !votes, seven of which are just votes, without a proper rationale behind them, one "Keep" vote from without any reasoning, a "Keep per BilCat" from, a keep from  without a "why" behind the rationale, a "waste of time" from , failure to state why from ,  stating a keep per WP:SNOW without explaining why the article should be kept, a keep from  without citing a policy, and  doesn't explain what it meets notability standards. And three delete !votes all explaining why it should be deleted and one exceedingly long comment from . I request the closing admin take into account all these !votes and the comment before closing this AfD and close based on the merit of the argument instead of the number of !votes/votes. — Mike  moral  ♪♫  21:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Closing "based on the merit of the argument instead of the number of !votes/votes"is actully SOP, and acting like it isn't going to happen here unless you ask for it is bad faith. You always have the option of appealing the result if you have reason to suspect the closer merely counted votes, ut at least wait until it's closed first. - BilCat (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Disregarding the disparaging comments here by at least two editors that certainly do not meet the standards of civility, and making the haughty argument that some votes/comments are not to be respected because the editors have not fully addressed the question, is attempting to derail the process. This article meets the standards of notability, has adequate reference sources and has engendered a great deal of attention by numerous authors. The event is a major hull loss of a 747, and has international connections, with the airline/carrier involved. The aforementioned article is not a stub, and because of its length and coverage, would certainly not be incorporated into the main Boeing 747 article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC).
 * And also may I point out that in order to delete their has to Obvious Consensus to Delete ( as opposed to merely consensus) per WP:NotEarly. How anybody can still think that their is Obvious consensus to delete here is beyond comprehension. I agree with Bzuk and Pmedema WP:SNOW clearly applies here--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is disparaging in the least to expect people to read, understand, and comply with, the instructions given at WP:AFD. Infact, instead of being disparaging, it is just plain good advice. If more people did it, there would be less instances of people totally wasting there time here by making completely invalid arguments, such as your 'it's not a stub' or 'lot's of people have worked on it' comments. MickMacNee (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This has taken on a unsavoury tone, keep your comments to the topic, rather than making comments about other editors. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC).
 * Please keep your replies on topic too. If anything unsavoury is occuring here, it is your continuing insinuations that something dodgy is going on, when in actual fact, in an AFD, comments about whether the proper procedures are being followed by editors are not, is very much allowed, and expected. MickMacNee (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The topic meets notability as it is well documented, uses reliable sources, has no obvious bias or opinion, covers a significant subject/event and especially, has the consensus agreement from interested parties (editors) for its inclusion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC).
 * The nominator has not challenged the reliability of the sources, the neutrality of the article, or even how well it is documented. The rest of your post covers issues whose validity will not benefit from any more basic assertion in here I don't think. MickMacNee (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The nominator challenged the article in terms of NOTNEWS which states that Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events and this has already been covered by other editors. as well as stating that there has been so many recent air crashes therefore it does not warrant itself an article. I can assure you that a UPS 747 crashing is not routine news  Fattyjwoods  Push my button 02:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't think the nominator was suggesting that this was just another in a long line of UPS 747 crash articles, and he is I am very sure, fully aware of what the AIRCRASH essay actually says about this, which is 'do not create an article'. And I really don't think he agrees with you that the company or the aircraft type makes the news reporting of a crash any less routine for the purposes of NOT#NEWS, even though it might make the incident seem unusual to aviation enthusiasts. Now, if they really want these sorts of factors to have some weight for the purposes of defeating NOT#NEWS concerns, then they should actually make sure their proposed notability guideline actually takes it into account and says it, ideally, with some actual evidence based justification behind it (like showing how similar accidents just like this have infact passed the test of enduring and lasting notability) without having to resort to simple assertion, predicting the future, and original research. MickMacNee (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Mikemoral, the reason why plane crashes are often reported is because there are many, many, many small private general aviation planes that crash. By notable plane crashes, we mean commercially operated large airplanes like 737s, 767s, A330s, etc. Those crashes do not occur everyday. The everyday, non notable crashes are the Joe Somebody's private Cessna that crashes after leaving the local municipal airport. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whose 'we'? Not even the AIRCRASH essay says that write-off crashes involving 737s, 767s, A330s are just so rare they should always have an article. A 737 is written off on average three times a year. That's 148 accidents since 1967. Does anyone here really honestly believe that the consensus view of what Wikipedia is and is not, is to be a database for recording all of those incidents, each on it's own page? MickMacNee (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whenever someone on here invokes a "we" - it means the Wikipedia community.
 * "A 737 is written off on average three times a year. That's 148 accidents since 1967." And that covers many years, from 1967 to 2010 is a total of 43 years. That's a long time span.
 * "Does anyone here really honestly believe that the consensus view of what Wikipedia is and is not, is to be a database for recording all of those incidents, each on it's own page?" - Most, if not almost all of the accidents where it is a large aircraft and it is a writeoff and there are fatalities can be developed into a comprehensive encyclopedia article, far beyond a database entry.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By 'database', I don't mean a collection of stubs, a database can still consist of massive articles, and still effectively just be a database, a collection of information that goes beyond the purpose of a general encyclopoedia. Anyway, where it is a large aircraft and it is a writeoff and there are fatalities, is nowhere near what AIRCRASH says at the moment, but if that's what you think could make a good rule of thumb, all I can suggest is that you test it at VPP, against NOT, GNG, and EVENT, because I don't accept it, and I'm sure a lot of other people wouldn't, if presented as an abstract policy question, rather than in the arena of an Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should not have any difficulty assessing who we are . I would like to point out 2 recent AfD's on AIRCRASH incidents in which both MMN and Mikemoral both !voted for deletion. The two are Articles for deletion/Filair plane crash and Articles for deletion/Agni Air Flight 101.  The same lame arguments/excuses were made by both these editors and both articles were kept.  both cases then went to WP:DRV and MMN is not having much luck getting either one of these articles deleted their either Deletion review/Log/2010 September 2.  I think the WP community has spoken and it is very clear to me that there is broad consensus to keep articles on Crashes involving large or small airliners.--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Lame? I think not. Both sides here have perfectly valid opinions, they're both supported by policy, just happens that more people are in favor keeping these sorts of articles. In any case, the outcome of an earlier AfD/DRV shouldn't have any bearing on this discussion, each article should be judged independently. C628 (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * While each article should be looked at individually, often previous AFDs and or DRVs do set de facto precedents. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm guilty of using them as references myself, but just saying "keep this because we kept that" or vice versa without looking at anything else is, IMO, generally a bad idea. C628 (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When ever the keep side brings brings up an argument I try to counter that argument with a better one. It rather insulting to call someone's argument "lame." You call my argument lame about my argument, considering ed the other keep votes and !votes, could be considered "lame" according to your standards? — Mike moral  ♪♫  21:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Was that in reply to me or Wikireader41? Not trying to be dense or anything, but I really don't know... C628 (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Directed at, sorry for the confusion. — Mike moral  ♪♫  23:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

 * Keep, but not because it's a hull-loss, not because it's UPS' first fatal acccident and not because it is being investigated (anything involving large aircraft always get investigated, even a loss of separation). What strikes me as being a very good reason to keep this was that there was smoke in the cockpit, they returned to the airport, they took off again and crashed after reporting a cockpit fire. This cuts a swathe across several different AIRCRASH criteria (none of which mention hull-loss incidentally). YSSYguy (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Struck out erroneous comment after re-reading source material, but my opinion stands. YSSYguy (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "cuts a swathe across several different AIRCRASH criteria" - can you be more specific please? Because I am not seeing which ones at all, except just A3. MickMacNee (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase Donna Moss in The West Wing I may have overstated a little, but just a little; a cockpit fire is a very serious matter, and I'd say that investigators would want to arrive at a basic understanding of the cause very quickly in case it's a fleet-wide problem or has widespread relevance to air safety (like the Cincinnati DC-9 fire). There are lots of seemingly-small things that happen to aircraft that don't result in WP articles, but which do have fleet-wide ramifications. There was a Qantas aircraft that had a serious electrical failure a few years ago; it turned out that a drip tray under one of the galleys was not installed correctly and galley waste liquid was overflowing onto an electrical centre. This had fleet-wide consequences in that inspections found quite a few similar problems in the fleet, across a number of carriers. I agree that people are in too much of a rush to create these articles before anything is really known other than that the aircraft crashed, I agree that "hull loss" does not equal "notable"; however we have the article now and at the risk of being accused of CRYSTAL, the cockpit fire is to me the stand-out factor. If it turns out that the cause is one of the crew dropping a cigarette or some other isolated event, then by all means re-open the deletion discussion. YSSYguy (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue with this is more OR than CRYSTAL. You've taken the reports of a fire, but as far as I can see, everything beyond that is your own speculation without the actual evidence in this actual crash to back it (albeit the general theory is based on not unreasonable assumptions and aviation pratices), and that is what you are basing your vote on. A basic CRYSTAL vote would see someone simply assertiong something will happen, such as when people claim that something simply being investigated means it will have significance whatever the outcomes, whereas you've gone a bit more complex than that, and have implied you accept this could after all turn out to be an insignificant crash, and want to keep on a provisional basis. To keep on that basis is I think quite wrong and against the inclusion policy, because it does not take account of WP:NTEMP. Anyone trying to delete this article down the line, if it did prove to have been a totally insignificant cause, will face strong objections on the principle that due to NTEMP, if it's kept now, per wp:afd and wp:event and a bunch of other pages, that decision should have been made because it was considered, and proven through good arguments, that it is notable here and now, on the RS evidence available. Don't get me wrong, if there was even a scrap of RS evidence right now that this crash is believed to have had a cause which has fleet wide consequences, I could be persuaded to vote keep, but as far as I can see, this RS doesn't exist. As an aside, I would have actually thought if the pilot was smoking, it would be a pretty big deal no? MickMacNee (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - It's preposterous that we're wasting time on this discussion. Of course a fatal hull-loss crash of a nearly-new 747 with US crew and ownership is going to generate sufficient RS to sustain the article. The fact that nobody has published anything but news in the first days after the crash is hardly surprising. Show me a similar crash that didn't eventually meet GNG and I might reconsider. LeadSongDog come howl!  19:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the idea that lots of news coverage can 'sustain an article' is a revelation to anybody here. The issue is, whether that is the purpose of Wikipedia or not, per EVENT and per NOT#NEWS. You'd have a better case for expressing incredulity that anybody could even think this, if you yourself had actually found a similar incident that had an article, which detailed exactly how it had lasting historical significance, rather than asking others to look for you. We have a list of 747 hull losses, there must be one on there I'm sure. MickMacNee (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll race you. Can you find a non-notable before I find a notable? LeadSongDog come howl!  21:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Turns out we have already have articles on every fatal 747 hull loss except the 27 November 2001 MK Airlines Boeing 747 crash, in Nigeria, of a 20 year old aircraft in which one crew member was killed. Perhaps we need to write that one too. LeadSongDog come howl!  22:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? What about the 1976 Iranian Air Force freighter? that was the first one I saw without an article on the list. If it's true, then perhaps a few of those need to be put through AFD? Because I would be amazed if every single one of those 49 crashed met 2 criteria of WP:AIRCRASH. Anyway, the MK crash occured in 2004, so that is surely more than enough time to be able to write an article that proves it was a historically significant crash, as defined by WP:EVENT. If it is only possible to write an article about it from contemporary news reporting, and it doesn't meet 2 criteria of AIRCRASH, then we are back to square one. I think I can almost guarantee we will be seeing that spring up in an article in one form or another, very soon. MickMacNee (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does have one - MK Airlines Flight 1602. It's not what I would call convincing. It appears to have been created on the assumption that a 747 loss is automatically notable, which again brings us back to square one - which came first, the chicken or the egg? Are they all notable becuase they all (maybe?) have articles, or do they all have articles because they are all notable? There's certainly no evidence in that specific article that that crash meets EVENT or AIRCRASH. MickMacNee (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're right: we do need an article on Imperial Iranian Air Force Flight ULF48 crash near Madrid. I somehow missed Boeing_747_hull_losses. There is an official NTSB report available, plus some other reliable sources, so it's only a question of getting around to writing that article. Re the 2004 MK Airlines Flight 1602 crash in Halifax, we do have a stub and there is a full Transportation Safety Board investigation report available. The earlier 27 November 2001 MK Airlines crash of 9G-MKI in PHC is mentioned in that TSB report (p.50). Therein is a Nigerian Federal Ministry of Aviation report identified, but it appears that contrary to ICAO rules the Nigerians have not made that report publicly available. This raises an interesting question of WP:NOTCENSORED vs WP:V. We should perhaps inquire if the full Nigerian report is available through the NTSB reading room in Washington.LeadSongDog come howl!  17:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * LeadSong: Have you checked the Nigerian accident investigation agency to see if any report copies are available on its website? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I had a look, but couldn't find much. There's a lot of "under construction" on that website. Tragically, it seems that had the lessons of that 2001 event only been taken for action Sosoliso_Airlines_Flight_1145 four years later might have been avoided at the same airport. Its official report (avail on Skybrary) reads like a virtual replay, but with 105 killed. Bad wx, no power for the runway lighting during "daylight" hours, instrument approach below threshold, missed the runway, struck an exposed concrete culvert, and burned. This may have finally inspired serious reforms in Nigerian air safety, we'll see. LeadSongDog come howl!  20:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep We are invited to consider whether the article fails notability under the policy WP:NOTNEWS which in turn asks whether the subject of the article has enduring WP:Notability. WP:NOTNEWS then gives clarifying remarks which lead me to suspect this subject is "enduring". In the guideline WP:Notability it seems to me the only aspect by which this well-referenced article could "fail" is the general notability guideline where, because all five criteria seem to me to have been met, the article has a presumption of meeting the notability criterion for being kept. The matter is then referred to consensus. So, in this case there is no policy for deletion and we are asked to try and decide amongst ourselves whether the article is worth keeping. The matter becomes quite subjective. I happen to think the article is very well worth keeping and I note there are detailed bodies of such information for the US and UK, for example, aimed at a broad audience. For me, merely not liking articles about air accidents and observing that they are reported as news, is nowhere near enough to sustain a delete argument. I think this nomination is unhelpful to the encyclopedia. Thincat (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I follow your logic, but you've completely missed out the part of NOT#NEWS that went on to mention WP:EVENT, which is the guideline that fleshes out the subjective 'is this just news' question for things like aircrashes, once the 5 N criteria have been met. And by the by, NTSB/AAIB reports are not meant for a broad audience, they are primarily intended to be used by legislators and the aviation industry. They are published for reasons of full disclosure, and cover far more incidents and accidents than Wikipedia ever would, even in the most inclusive of set-ups. MickMacNee (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * More WP:WL by MMN. Do you still really think that this article has any chance of getting deleted ????  I would strongly urge you to listen to the community stop making ludicrous arguments again and again. stop being disruptive to the project and find something useful to do.--Wikireader41 (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Way to assume bad faith there while being uncivil at the same time... Just saying as someone who's left their delete opinion but has no further opinion on the merits of the keep arguments. Strange Passerby (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikireader, there's still the hurdle of WP:DRV to overcome yet. Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

 * Delete. Wow. My eyes hurt, I've read this twice over and gone to the bother of reading the guidelines...
 * TL;DR Synopsis: WP:N defers to WP:NOTNEWS which says "look at WP:EVENT" which, for me, this event fails. The essay WP:AIRCRASH, if you actually work through, also says there is no notability here, but that essay is still being debated on its talk page. The guys over there should get it sorted one way or the other to avoid these ridiculous AfDs.
 * The Long Version. My argument follows the line of logic that I believe the other deleters are using but might not have set out like this. WP:N suggests this is notable what with all the news articles, but suggests one considers WP:NOTNEWS. This is not applicable as the news coverage is not quite run-of-the-mill postings about school plays, etc. WP:NOTNEWS tells us that events in the news are actually covered by WP:EVENT, so I will do that guideline the honour of going through each point:
 * An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable.
 * Not at the moment, and impossible to assess without a WP:CRYSTALBALL.
 * ''Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group.
 * Well, the impact at the moment is only in the news. Are there going to be any changes as a result of this event? Well, who knows, still no WP:CRYSTALBALL here.
 * An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable.
 * The guideline focuses on in-depth information, but at the moment there are only reports of the event, so not enough notability here for me, at the moment.
 * Next is Duration of coverage
 * To hard to ascertain, but not likely to last that long. I can't even see the crash results being reported internationally, but, oh, that would require my WP:CRYSTALBALL again.
 * Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted.
 * There is indeed diverse coverage at the moment, but I don't believe that's the point of this clause, it's looking for something deeper, all we see at the moment are "sources that simply mirror", perhaps not literally, but they're all reporting the same superficial facts.
 * So my conclusion from the guidelines, which are the consensus view of notability at en.wp, is that this event is not notable. There is some additional colour from WP:AIRCRASH, where this event ticks A3 - Airline - First, deadliest, or most significant accident for a particular airline but just above it there is the statement If the accident or incident matches criteria only in this section, then coverage should normally be on the article about the aircraft or airline.. So according to that page it fails as well. There is some discussion on its talk page as to whether the inclusion grounds are too tight, so I wouldn't want to apply it as gospel either way.
 * The keepers generally seem to argue that as this is "non-standard" news, WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply, and so notability is asserted by various WP:RS, but for me they don't do enough to refute WP:EVENT, as it's not possible for them to do this so few days after the event and its impact (if any) has not yet been assessed. Others are arguing that deaths or a hull-loss confer notability, which I have yet to read anywhere in guidelines, policy or even in the essay at WP:AIRCRASH. The seeming consensus of keepers here should therefore be overcome by the consensus forged at WP:EVENT.
 * I think that's enough! Once more facts are forthcoming about this crash we can re-assess, but at the moment this article is for a non-notable event. Bigger digger (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: A few issues:
 * "To hard to ascertain, but not likely to last that long." - Take a look at the coverage of Air France Flight 447. The coverage lasts and lasts, and lasts, and lasts. See, many of the responders are aware of how aviation accidents involving large airliners are covered. They do not last a short time. The coverage may stop for a while, but it comes back and back and back again.
 * "The guideline focuses on in-depth information, but at the moment there are only reports of the event, so not enough notability here for me, at the moment." I would argue that coverage is already "in-depth" because the media is beginning to explore theories and possible reasons why the UPS plane crashed. When that happens, the coverage is "in-depth." - For that matter, I just found a Wall Street Journal article which explicitly says that the UPS crash is raising concerns over smoke in airline cockpits. Another WSJ link discussed how there had been a long-running debate about how to combat smoke in airline cockpits. This alone is "in-depth" coverage.
 * "I can't even see the crash results being reported internationally, but, oh, that would require my WP:CRYSTALBALL again." When a crash of an American cargo airliner happens in the UAE with two deaths, the results will and are being reported internationally. Two countries are involved, and it will involve a relationship between the US and the UAE. This is already apparent. One cannot use WP:CRYSTALBALL to attack that reasoning. It's common sense.
 * "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." - The way the aviation industry works, with its focus on preventing accidents and analyzing the heck out of existing ones to get as much data as possible, it is almost certain that this accident will be a precedent for preventing something else or starting something new. Everything from TWA 800 to Swissair 111 to Korean Air 801 - all have become catalysts for doing something different. It is what the aviation industry does.
 * BTW, thank you for the TLDR summary! It helps us determine how to get a consensus on this matter.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks WTM. I'm still of the opinion that your points contribute to the newsworthy-ness of the event, rather than its encyclopedic notability. That can only be ascertained some time down the line in order to satisfy WP:EVENT (and no, I don't know how much time will be required, but the Sept 7th WSJ article about smoke issues is a step in the right direction). No worries for the TLDR, where was yours?!! Bigger digger (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ack, I think my TLDR ran away into the sunset ;)
 * I found another source from a Louisville, KY paper that stated that the NTSB had been advocating for additional fire protections on cargo aircraft. This was put in the context of UPS Flight 6. It seems certain that UPS Flight 6 will be a figure in the debate over fire protection equipment on cargo aircraft.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And when you no longer have to write "it seems certain" I'll be welcoming this article back, but at the moment that's WP:CRYSTAL. No tl;dr needed here! Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As this progresses, once the level of debate increases I'll strike out "it seems certain" and replace it with "it is certain."
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of your reasoning relies on the WP:CRYSTALBALL principle, but I think this is invalid for this purpose. This principle just means that Wikipedia articles themselves should not contain speculation and guessing. But when assessing the notability of a recent event, especially the long-term significance, we have to make guesses. Otherwise we would have to delete most articles about recent events, because there is rarely a way to definitely prove lasting notability shortly after the event has happened. As WP:EVENT says, "that an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." (In the same way, every AfD discussion is in fact nothing other than WP:Original research. We don't want this in articles, but it is necessary for assessing the notability of a subject since we will find few reliable sources that directly say "subject X is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.") --memset (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I wholeheartedly agree with the assessment. Because of the way this scenario is playing out, I have every reason to believe that this is a notable accident. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: This kind of accident doesn't happen every day, that's for sure. This was an in-flight fire, and this might change some safety guidelines. There are MUCH less significant crashes on Wikipedia too, so I'd definitely say to keep this.--Starbucks95905 (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Other stuff exists isn't good reasoning to keep an article. Strange Passerby (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF: "Other stuff exists" can indeed be wonderful reasoning for keeping an article. You just have to structure your argument correctly. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per BilCat and Mjroots. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand most of the above reasons are valid.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolween (talk • contribs) 07:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at WP:MAJORITY. — Mike moral  ♪♫  16:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read that page 'Remember that a reason which arguably could be classified as an "argument to avoid", can still have some valid points in it.' Think what he means is that consensus is very clear here.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP

Historically important as it is the first UPS accident involving a complete hull loss and the expiration of crew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.183.206.41 (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2010 (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.