Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Notability/Archive 2

Aviation accident lists per year?
(od) Thryduulf, what are your thought on a series of lists of aviation accidents per year? We have lists of shipwrecks, and list of railway accidents so why not aircraft? That way, some of these accidents which may be of lesser notability can get fair coverage via a list of accidents covering the year that the accident occurred in, plus mentions at airline, aircraft type and airport (if applicable). The list can also be linked in via that year's template too. Mjroots (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as there is some criteria for inclusion in the list so that routine and completely trivial events don't clutter the list (e.g. every incidence of turbulence, or where an aircraft bursts a single tyre on landing) I would wholeheartedly support such lists. I'm not familiar with the shipwreck lists, but I am with the list of railway accidents, and I think some of the entries are complete trivia (I can't give examples off the top of my head, but feel free to start a discussion on the relevant talk page). Getting back on topic, the criteria should not be as strenuous as these are, but verifiability is an absolute must (thinking aloud: perhaps requiring independent coverage from at least two sources would be something to consider). Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking along the lines of this - General Aviation not included unless the accident is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Commercial Civil Aviation generally restricted to write offs and serious damage. Other accidents only included if they have an article on Wikipedia. Military aviation generally only included if the accident has an article on Wikipedia. All entries to be verifiable, either by a link to the article or references from reliable sources such as Aviation Saftey Network, JACDEC etc. Mjroots (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds a good starting point at the very least. I'd suggest that some accidents/incidents that get a section rather than an article are probably notable enough for the list (although I'm not sure if they'd make it anyway through other means), I'm thinking things like John Denver and Zambia National Football Team. I'm not certain how we'd phrase such a criteria though. I suggest you start an article or userspace draft so we can see what it looks like in practice. Thryduulf (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Dont we already have three by year lists already -List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft,List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present) and List of accidents and incidents involving general aviation. Would this list duplicate these or be someting different? MilborneOne (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We do have those lists, but what I have in mind is something like this . Mjroots (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would simple entries like you suggest could be added to 2009 in aviation. MilborneOne (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 2009 in aviation suitably expanded. Mjroots (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You may need to change the format to match the other Years in aviation articles and perhaps weed out some of the non-notable accidents. For instance it doesnt need the country or flag highlighted. But it seems a suitable home for the info. MilborneOne (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Should an accident really be notable just because a notable person was on board?
Hi guys, this is about Lufthansa Flight 288. The only claim for an entry of its own (instead of merging it into Contact Air) is that a notable person was on board. This was a minor airliner accident with no injuries. I think the notability criterion of one notable passenger is a bad one. If the accident itself is described in an Wikipedia article, what difference does it make who was on board? And I came to thinking: What if a passenger becomes notable years afterward? E.g. let's assume someone changes life because they happened to be onboard of an airliner that had a minor accident and thus becomes notable. Do we then have to make the accident notable years later, too? I appreciate your ideas and thoughts. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read the sections above this one, you will see that a new standard for notability is being discussed and is near consensus (although the discussion has gone quiet). That standard would mean that it takes more than one notable person being involved to make an incident notable. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Does consensus for the current WP:AIRCRASH criteria exist?
With the discussion above about my fourth draft in the state that it is, I'm wondering if there is any consensus that the current live version of the WP:AIRCRASH guidelines are a reliable and useful guide to the notability of aviation accidents and incidents? If there isn't such consensus, or indeed if there is consensus they are not, how should we move forward? Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I still have some minor issues with Thryduulf-4 but it is a far better than the current WP:AIRCRASH. I would suggest it may be easier to make Thryduulf-4 live as WP:AIRCRASH and then see it tested in the real world (like AfDs) any other issues could also be discussed and tweaked in as we go along. MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that Thryduulf-4 is not a finished product (I didn't even expect it to be as close as the reception it's had suggests it is). I'll wait for some more opinions here before going live with it though, as once a version does go live I'd like to preserve the numbering of criteria as far as possible in the same way that the WP:CSD criteria numbering is (e.g there hasn't been a CSD A4 for years). Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't see any problems with it as it stands. What it needs is live testing. If it's used in AFD's then it'll probably get more feedback than in here. -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  22:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Less-notable accidents
It seems to me that one way of dealing with some of the less notable accidents is to include them in the relevant "year in aviation" articles. Generally, accidents resulting in a hull loss / damaged beyond economic repair or substantial damage to a commercial civil aircraft (scheduled and chartered operations) or warbird can be included. Lesser incidents dealt with on a case by case basis. Also GA accidents if they have an article on Wikipedia, and perhaps some Military losses too (these on a case-by-case basis). Allowing this would perhaps allow the culling of some lesser accidents via AfD discussions as it could be argued that there was an alternative home for the information as an alternative to outright deletion. Mjroots (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest listing less-notable accidents and incidents, particularly those involving GA, in the article for the airport of origin or destination. Most non-notable accidents and incidents take place during takeoff or landing since the speeds and altitudes are generally lower and thereby less likely to cause mass fatalities or hull losses. It's logical to list less-notable accidents in association with the airport because they may affect airport operations, or may interest readers investigating the history of the airport or general area, despite being inconsequential to the history of aviation as a whole. Furthermore, dividing these summaries amongst many thousands of airport articles would lead to less clutter than dividing them amongst the 106 "year in aviation" articles; a comprehensive list of GA fatality crashes for even one year would be staggering in length. I've been working on such a list for a busy metropolitan commercial airport, Dallas Love Field, and its length remains quite reasonable despite the inclusion of some minor accidents (a good example is a Cessna 175 that took off and immediately executed an emergency landing on a busy street and hit a car, causing no significant injuries to the 5 people involved, but prompting considerable local news coverage). I think this is a better approach than including GA crashes and/or no-injury minor-damage commercial airliner incidents, such as landing-gear collapses or taxi collisions, in the "year in aviation" or "accidents and incidents" pages. Carguychris (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Beta test of new guidelines
Per the consensus above, I have replaced the old guidelines with my fourth draft version. The only change from the version above is the addition of the sentence "If an event is not significant enough to be mentioned in any of the article(s) about the people, places or organisations concerned then it will rarely be notable enough for it's own article." to the Principles section. This is based on a comment by Borock at Articles for deletion/Lufthansa Flight 288. It will probably be a good idea to announce this change in any appropriate places you think of.

Do feel free to improve the formatting, etc of the guidelines but please do not alter them without gaining consensus first. I have noted that the guidelines are being beta tested and requested discussion take place in this section, if a new section is started the link on the project page should be updated. I don't think we should set a specific deadline for the beta test period to end, but should wait until it is clear there are no (more) significant changes being discussed. If changes are made to the critera, please try and preserve the numbering as they will likely be referred to as, e.g. A4, P1, etc, in deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment
This guidline has been a long time coming. While I personally agree completely with all its content, in practice there will continue to be a number of challenges with future incidents: So in summary, I have had the herd run over me before, and fully expect it happen again.  Socrates2008 ( Talk )  12:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Public interest and press saturation of aircraft incidents - many people interpret this is WP:NOTABILITY
 * A stampede of editors, many of who are not experienced or not familiar with this policy, but who are all trying to update the article with the latest information
 * WP not following its own guidlines about not being a news source by placing links to these articles under the news section on the front page
 * Certain individuals who perceive these guildlines and those who implement them to be agents of government or airlines who are trying to suppress the "truth".
 * Some people cite WP policy, which trumps any guidline or essay, in order to justify air accident articles being retained.


 * Just a thought on your stampede comment, perhaps it is worth not invoking guidelines or having a guideline moratorium, or sending to prod or AfD for at least 48 hours after an accident and all the drive by editors have passed through! Remember most of them are editing in good faith but may not have edited an air accident article before. Once the fuss died down we can start steering it towards a long-term encyclopedic article (or deletion merge etc if appropriate) MilborneOne (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * MilborneONe, that is a very good suggestion which should apply to all articles. No PRODding or AfDing within 48 hrs of creation. That should give creators a bit of time to polish up new articles if they are not in the habit of creating them in a sandbox. Note that this would not prevent CSD nominations, which should be allowed to be placed at any time if an editor believes the article meets CSD criteria. Mjroots (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd go a little further. We are all too often quick to delete content which should really be merged. Usually this happens under the rubrick of WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS. I've previously raised this, but I believe it had been lost in the noise. For a small airline or for a less common aircraft type there may be only a few accidents. In that context, accidents that would not be notable on, say, a Pan-Am B747, may still be worth noting in the operator, aircraft, or airport article. WP:N does not and should not apply to individual paragraphs. It applies to articles as a whole. Accordinly the first resort should be to merge, not to delete. Then if subsequent developments reveal that a separate article can be justified, a content fork is simple to do. In the context of the fourth draft, the merge/fork correspond to a simple move between layers of the pyramid. Now here's the rub: when we don't have a separate article, we often have more work to do, because the content gets replicated in the articles for the aircraft, the operator, the location, and sometimes the affected notable passenger's articles. LeadSongDog come howl 14:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree that in many cases we should look to merge rather than to delete, and that is why I've tried to structure the whole guidelines around a presumption to merge accidents/incidents that are moderately notable but not enough to sustain a whole article. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

While looking at the articles listed below in the Mid-air collisions sections, I've had some more general thoughts about the guidelines that I want other peoples opinions on:
 * Should the wording "Incidents solely involving training flights or which are operational losses during conflict or peacekeeping operations are rarely notable enough for their own article. " should be moved from criteria M1 to the introduction to the Military section?
 * Do we need a criterion (C4?) for notable rescue efforts or where the rescue efforts led to changes in procedures for major rescues (things like the Ramstein air disaster rescue debacle would match this one)?
 * Should we add a criteria (L4 perhaps) to cover where settlements on the ground are very significantly impacted by accidents - things like parts of a plane falling off and killing people on the ground, or a plane crash landing into a settlement? This should obviously just be a section on the location's article if that's all that is notable, and should apply if the settlement's airport, etc was the location or otherwise involved. I don't want to water-down L3 though.
 * Should L2 apply if the accident happened at an air show hosted by that airport/air base?
 * Should A6 actually be in the Causes and outcomes section? Should any criterion where changes to rescue procedures result (see second bullet) be merged with this criterion? Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The suggested L4 might be worth adding. Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has some examples where overruns into populated areas had heavy casualties on the ground. American Airlines Flight 6780 (and a cluster of others) were accidents that changed zoning bylaws around airports across the U.S. via the Doolittle Commission. Similar cases likely pertain in other countries. I'll have to think a little longer about the other suggestions.LeadSongDog come howl 16:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, overruns and missed runways were the sort of things that I was thinking explicitly including from an L4, they should instead be counted towards L2. Your comments re zoning however make me think that A6 should be moved to the causes and outcomes section as C4 and widened to include any significant legislation/procedure changes occuring as a result of the incident, e.g. zoning, rescues, etc, not just those directly related to aviation. M2 could probably be sensibly merged in as well. Thryduulf (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The overruns in the DRC weren't the usual first world story of a blown tire - instead there's volcanic lava shortening the runway at one end, market stalls at the other end, chronic gross overloading, old aircraft badly maintained and operated out of license, etc. All very sad and unnecessary. The poor regulatory environment means little or no chance of an official report ever being produced, so news reports were about the best sources available - not ideal, but a necessary tradeoff of less WP:RS for more WP:WORLDWIDE. Thing is that it's not really "local" to a specific airport, there are many like that there. Waiting for significant changes would mean no article at all. LeadSongDog come howl 03:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain quite what you're trying to say here. If there are several that have happened then they would (probably) best be treated in a single article (e.g XXX Airport overrun accidents). If you are saying the problem is more general then an article about Runway overrun accidents in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Air safety in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or something like that. There isn't a criteria that mandates there being an official report and any changes brought about are only one criteria that show notability, there are others that could apply equally. Even then if an accident resulted in other nations refusing the DRC airline access to their airspace or stopped flying to that airport, then they count towards that criteria. My thought in excluding things like overruns from L4 is that if an accident is the most serious at an airport, then it is almost guaranteed to also be the most serious in the settlement the airport is located in and so it shouldn't get counted twice; it is not saying that overruns can never be notable, merely they should be treated as happening at the airport. Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm overthinking it. Compare 1996 Air Africa crash to 2007 Africa One Antonov An-26 crash. Different carriers, aircraft, airports, and decades, yet they are almost the same story. It's not so much that they were overruns, but that there's no other neat pigeonhole to drop them. If we excluded news sources from establishing notability we wouldn't have these articles at all, yet comparable accidents in a first-world nation would certainly be included. NotNews is simply too unfair a notability threshold for third-world events.LeadSongDog come howl 18:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Mid-air collisions
I'm specifically asking about Non-GA related mid-air collisions here. What is the consensus re


 * a} Civil-civil mid-air collisions for chartered and scheduled flights.
 * b) Civil-military mid-air collisions where a chartered or scheduled flight is involved.
 * c) Military-military mid-air collisions.

Reason I ask is that the 2009 Iranian Air Force mid-air collision doesn't appear to fit in with any criteria. However, before you all rush to AfD it, In believe that notability is established in this case due to the fact that the accident has left Iran without any AWACS cover at all. A secondary notability factor is that an international leader (albeit a dead one) is involved! - You'll have to look at the article to find out how. Mjroots (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In the event of mid-air collisions, I think that the criteria needs to be met for at least one of the aircraft, regardless of civil or military. As you have stated, the article highlights that this aircraft is the first (and only, and last, for now) AWACS aircraft of the Iranian Air Force. While it isn't a perfect fit for the criteria in the essay, I think the article makes the case for notability adequately. --Born2flie (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not the only AWACS aircraft, Iran has another but it is not operational. Suppose they'll have to do some work on it now. Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this doesn't really fit with any of the criteria, but is probably notable. It could probably do with another criteria to cover this sort of thing, but I can't at the moment think what that would be. Do you have any suggestions? Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It probably needs a criteria for mid air collisions. M, A, and C have all been taken so call it X (the paths meet in the middle, representing point of collision).


 * Suggest that GA-GA mid-air collisions generally non-notable unless other factors involved. GA-Civil, GA-Military, Civil-Civil, Civil-Military generally would be notable. Military-Military need to be taken on a case-by-case basis (small fast jets generally nn, larger aircraft may or may not be notable depending on circumstances). Mid-air collisions that result in non-military deaths deemed notable. Mjroots (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Do we really need mid-air criteria? Perhaps if they collided nose-to-nose, or if the right wing of one clipped the left wing of another? Honestly, if the aircraft can't meet the criteria in their applicable section, what does it matter if it flew into another aircraft, fell apart in mid-air, or flew into the ground? --Born2flie (talk) 03:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Unlike all other accidents (apart from ground collisions, which should probably be considered in a similar way), mid-air collisions involve two (or more - Ramstein) aircraft. Mjroots (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need a specific section for mid-air collisions, as with the exception of Military-Military collisions, all of the combinations Mjroots gives should get the outcome he suggests with existing criteria (except possibly GA-Millitary and GA-Civil were there were no significant consequences for the non-GA aircraft, I'd need to look at some examples of them). This says to me there should be another criteria to deal with Military-Military mid-air collisions that happen outside of conflict zones and do not involve two training flights. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Examples
 * 1) GA-GA - 2009 Hudson River mid-air collision
 * 2) GA-Civil - Aeroméxico Flight 498
 * 3) GA-Military -
 * 4) Civil-Civil - 1976 Zagreb mid-air collision
 * 5) Civil-Military - Cubana de Aviación Flight 493
 * 6) Military-Military - Ramstein airshow disaster

Can't find a GA-Military accident yet, but I'm sure there must be one. Mjroots (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC) :Operation Entebbe is GA-Military, GA-Civil, Aviation-accident, though it was not an "accident" in the non-aviation use of the word and certainly wasn't a mid-air collision. Really, though, why do we need a separate criterion for mid-air? If the accident meets the WP:GNG, that ought to be enough. LeadSongDog come howl 13:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at all the articles you mention above, I think all of them except Flight 493 clearly meet existing criteria and deserve articles. Flight 493 might scrape a pass, but my gut feeling on this one is that it isn't really notable enough for its own article and a condensed version on the Cubana de Aviación article might be better. Anyway, my detailed observations are below:


 * 2009 Hudson River mid-air collision (General-General)
 * A6 (VFR changes)
 * Borderline C1 and L3 (only mid-air collision over NYC for 40 years)
 * Weak A2 ("Safety recommendation")
 * Presumably A3 (Helicopter co redirects to this article)


 * Aeroméxico Flight 498 (General-Civil)
 * A6 (TCAS, mode C transponders)
 * L3 (deadliest to people on the ground in the LA area)


 * 1976 Zagreb mid-air collision
 * A1 (only fatal accident to befall an aircraft operated by British Airways)
 * C1 (at the time, the world's worst mid-air collision)
 * P3 (all controllers indicted, one found guilty (and later released)).

My thoughts are that this event really only has borderline notability, and could probably be merged with Cubana de Aviación in slightly condensed form.
 * Cubana de Aviación Flight 493 (Civil-Military)
 * M3 (peacetime loss of life) although as this was just a training flight, the military plane could have been another civil aircraft with little differen to the event
 * Might be A1 as well, but incident not mentioned in Cubana de Aviación article though.

(based on it being the only one in Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Germany to have happened in this state).
 * Ramstein airshow disaster (Military-Military)
 * L1 (one of the most deadly and most signficant airshow accidents and the airshow isn't otherwise notable, although a small section on the history of the airshow before and after on this article would be fine)
 * C1 (one of the most significant accidents involving 3 aircraft - probably the most significant where one aircraft was on the ground and one (or more) in the air)
 * L2 (deadliest at the airbase)
 * L3 (deadliest and most signifcant in Rhineland-Palatinate

This suggests that based on these accidents, another criteria for mid-air collisions is not needed. See the above "Comment" section for more general thoughts though. Thryduulf (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a note about GA v military collison one example in 1974 a RAF Phantom at low-level hit a Piper Pawnee crop sprayer, an event had a significant change in low-level flying procedures in the air force including making public all the up to then classified low-flying routes used. They have been other notable GA v Mil accidents in the UK which have I believe also changed the rules about needing strobe lighting and the high-visibilty marking of ambulance and police helicopters. Must write a few articles so they can be used as examples! MilborneOne (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a note article is now 1974 Norfolk mid-air collision. MilborneOne (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As I suspected, that article meets the criteria without one specifically for mid-air collisions: C1 (first collision between a civil and military aircraft in the United Kingdom low-flying system), A6 and M2 (at least some of the accident recommendations implemented) [note though that I have proposed elsewhere on this page to merge these], M3 (peacetime loss of life). Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of that one. G-ASVX and XV493 were the two aircraft involved. Mjroots (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If the accidents resulted in changes to legislation/procedures then they'll probably already pass the notability test without specific criteria for mid-air collisions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Accidents involving nuclear weapons
I venture that any aircraft accident involving a nuclear weapon would be notable, especially if the there's contamination or the weapon is lost (e.g. 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash). Also civilian airliner shootdowns (e.g. Korean Air Lines Flight 902)  Socrates2008 ( Talk )  10:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Having had a look at the two articles you mention, they both already meet the existing criteria without needing specific ones.
 * 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash meets C1 (significant nuclear accident), M2 (military suspended Chrome Dome operations, US-USSR agreement on notification of accidents), L3 (most significant in Greenland, due to nuclear issues and ensuing political scandal in Denmark). As one of the worst nuclear accidents, it also has notability beyond just being an air accident. I am tempted though to add a criteria to the causes and outcomes section about accidents/incidents that resulted in significant political reactions. Thoughts?
 * Korean Air Lines Flight 902 meets C2 (military action against civil flight), M2 (major shake-up of defence force command), M3 (peacetime loss of life to civilians). Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

challenge to the guideline
As I see it, we have firm reasons why all fatal accidents in scheduled aviation are notable: they all get necessary coverage to meet the GNG, and the coverage continues past the actual date of the accident. . The extremely elaborate criteria on the page here strike me as nonsense: for example, if there are two accidents to  a type, one killing 50 people and one killing 49, only the first would be notable.
 * have any articles been actually deleted under these criteria. I do not think there would be the least agreement on this. The articles that do get deleted are the ones with non-fatal results. The borderline is accidents with one or two fatalities in general or military aviation.    DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I understood that all fatal accidents to commercial aircraft are notable, can you tell us exactly which bit of the guideline is causing you trouble? MilborneOne (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The entire Section 2.2.4, which seems to say otherwise.  DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines on this page were arrived at by consensual discussion (see further up this page) which was sparked by agreement that the previous aircrash guidelines were not strict enough. These guidelines are based around the idea that fatal accidents to airlines are not necessarily notable enough for a standalone article, but that for most incidents coverage should be as part of a larger article. It is not correct to say that "if there are two accidents to a type, one killing 50 people and one killing 49, only the first would be notable" as notability per the agreed guidelines depends on more than just the number of people killed. For example if the first accident was the result of shoddy maintenance by an airline known for shoddy maintenance and the second was caused by a terrorist bomb theb the latter would likely get a standalone article while the first would be covered on an article about the airline or the series of incidents. If the two incidents happened within a short timespan and of teh same cause then they would likely be covered together in one article. If you agree or disagree with any part of the guidelines, please make some specific comments that can be discussed. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PS regarding articles that have deleted, I don't follow all deletion discussions regarding air accidents/incidents, but I can't remember off the top of my head any fatal accidents being brought to AfD since the guideline was changed. Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Deliberate crash of an airliner
Would the deliberate crash of an airliner for research purposes be sufficiently notable. It's a bit WP:CRYSTAL at the moment, but Channel 4 in the UK are involed in such a project. Mjroots (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say it probably should be mentioned on Wikipedia, but whether that should be separate from the context of the TV program or whatever I don't know. Certainly I don't think it should stand alone before the event has happened.Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say an article about the TV programme is probably the way to go. Allegedly the crash is scheduled for 10 December, using a L1011 Tristar. Mjroots (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not the first time this has been done and might be more appropriate in an article about accident investigation rather than a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It might also fit well with discussion of the airliner that was deliberately blown up to test if some sort of strengthening would work (kevlar lining or something was it?). Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the Anti-misting Kerosene experiment? Mjroots (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly. I remember seeing footage of an airliner being blown up. They had done something to one half and not the other, and the results were very spectacular with the treated half being basically intact and the other half pretty much the opposite. I can't remember any more details than that, annoyingly Thryduulf (talk)
 * That would be reinforced cargo containers, test done at Bruntingthorpe if I remember correctly. Mjroots (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Archiving
Would anyone object to setting up a bot to auto-archive threads on this discussion page after say 60 days? Thryduulf (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Move aircrash notability criteria to a separate sub page?
The notability critera for accidents (WP:AIRCRASH) make up the vast majority of this page. As such would it be better to move them to a sub page - WikiProject Aviation/Notability/Accidents? If this is done, the WP:AIRCRASH shortcut would obviously be retargetted to point at the sub page and there would be a link provided to the new sub page (along the lines of See WikiProject Aviation/Notability/Accidents) from the #Accidents section of this page. I don't know whether the WP:AVIMOS shortcut should be retargetted or not. Thryduulf (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Memorials
In the B-29 Superfortress article, the following:

"A B29 "Overexposed" converted for reconnaissance crashed in the Peak District on Bleaklow Moor in the UK in 1948 killing the 13 crew. The wreckage is spread over an area of approximatey 50 metres and many large components are recognisable, including the four engines and some under carriage.  The site is visible on Google Earth.  The site is now marked with a memorial stone and a number of poppies and crosses adorn the site. Photographs of this site can be seen here on Flickr"

was removed as not being notable. This decision could of been handled differently. The text can be moved to Talk for discussion. (I moved the paragraph to the B-29 Talk page.) I contend that noting memorials of aircraft crash sites would be notable. As it takes many volunteers, possible governmental agencies, land owners and surviving family members of the aircraft crew to take upon themselves to erect a memorial for the crew, plus the expenses involved in this endeavor is quite sizable. Whether the aircraft crash site was military, military during a war, commercial, or the crash sites of "9-11" are all notable, as human deaths should not be valued as notable or not notable by one person. Another scenario, there are over 800+ military aircraft crash sites just in Colorado alone, all are identified in a crash site database. Of those 800+ site, I know of 3 known memorials erected or identified in public facility. Known memorials are just as important and notable as the aircraft identified in "aircraft on display" or "survivor" sections.
 * I recommend we can create a "Memorial" section and describe the memorial with reliable reference(s), possible photograph, if available. This memorial section would also be added to the current and recommended style guide layout of aircraft articles. Respectfully submitted.LanceBarber (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Although some memorials can be notable they are not really notable to the aircraft, none are related to the loss of aircraft but to the people. So a mention of a memorial in an accident article should be OK but it is not really relevant to the aircraft. So either the memorial is notable in its own right and should have an seperate article, can be mentioned in the accident article and the article of anybody mentioned who is notable but sorry not something for the aircraft article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Near misses
jroots comments above about an incident in Luxembourg where a van and aircraft were both on the runway at the same time, both having permission to be there. He comments that there were no injuries and no damage, but that it should still be notable. I wasn't aware of this incident previously, but I agree that it is as notable as if an impact had taken place.

My initial thoughts about how we should handle this sort of occurrence is to either have a "near miss" criteria in the causes and outcomes section, or to say that for all criteria in that section, a near miss is the same as the event happening in terms of notability. See also the comments associated with the example article for P3: "2001 Japan Airlines mid-air incident (two controllers prosecuted, also resulted in Japanese authorities requesting changes in ICAO procedures, had the collision not been avoided it would have been the deadliest civil aviation accident)" (bolding not in original).

As for how we define "near miss", I'm not sure, but the wording "an accident or incident which, under slightly different conditions, might have led to a serious accident" is used for rail accidents the RAIB investigate The Railways (Accident Investigation and Reporting) Regulations 2005 §5(3)b. We can't just use these verbatim as we have no defintion of "serious accident" and replacing "serious" with "notable" in the guideliens to determine what is notable just wont make sense, however the "slightly difference circumstances" (with some guidance on what is meant be "slightly") might work.

The previous guidelines used "unusual circumstances" but this lead to arguments and disagreements about what "unusual" meant (e.g. could something that was not uncommon in New England be notable because it was "unusual" in the Midwestern United States), so I would strongly oppose including such vague wording this time round. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Near misses on the ground are probably more common but most dont get reported in the media, I would think they would only be notable if they caused a fatality or a change in regulations. I would think the Luxembourg accident is a non-notable event. Near-misses in the air are harder as the media can report near-misses which were just close calls again we would need some secondary event to gain notability (and just not some tabloid type reporting). MilborneOne (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Had the van in the Luxembourg accident been "trespassing", I may well have agreed that the accident was probably not wikinotable. The fact is, that both van and aircraft were on the same runway at the same time and that each of them had permission to be there. We'll just have to wait for the investigation to be concluded. Mjroots (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

When to end beta testing?
On the 21st of February, it will be five months since the revised guidelines went live for "beta testing". In that time there has been no discussions initiated by people with comments about disagreeing with or improving either the guidelines as a whole or any specific criteria.

Accordingly, I propose that when they have been up for 5 months we declare the beta test to be over and eleveate the status to that of finalised guidelines adopted by consensus. Discussion and comment would still of course be welcome on the talk page in the normal way. Specifically, the introduction would be changed from: Following discussion, the new guidelines below are being beta tested and comments are welcome on the talk page. The beta testing began at 11:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC), comments made prior to this time are most likely referring to the previous guidelines, which can be viewed here. to These guidelines were significantly revised on 21 September 2009. References from before that date are most likely to a previous version.

If there are no objections by 11:13 21 February 2010 (UTC) (i.e. within the next 14½ days), I or someone else will carry out this change. Thryduulf (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We have had a recent problem with Articles for deletion/Cubana de Aviación Flight 310 when these guidelines were used to show that the accident was not notable although it was an airliner with 22 fatalities. So although we have the guidelines on when or not it should be in different articles I believe we are still missing something at the higher level. MilborneOne (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * From reading that article, I would tend to agree that it is not individually notable and would have commented to that effect had I been aware of the AfD. There is no indication that it is any different to any other controlled flight into terrain on landing, and ShadowRanger summed that up well in the discussion. IIRC there was consensus in the discussion that the number of fatalities should not be a criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Im not trying to be a pesk, considering all the work you have put into this Thryduulf but I think the draft as it stands is way to conservative. What this does is literally declare all general aviation accidents non-notable (with the exception of famous people onboard) and also greatly harms airliner flights that have resulted in fatalities. I would take an educated guess that if these new guidelines get through we can anticipate a good chunk of aviation accident articles being deleted. Even many airline accidents will be deleted due to the fact they didn't have enough fatalities. Articles for deletion/Cubana de Aviación Flight 310 is a good example of this, where it is a major accident that killed many yet doesn't fit into any applicable category. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 18:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would think that any airliner that manages to kills 21 people is notable, I note that a lot of the keep comments came from users that are part of this project so we really need to look at this bit again. MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I too think the current guidelines are too conservative. Any accident that results in a hull loss of an airliner should be at least notable enough for inclusion in articles about the aircraft, airline and (if applicable) the airport. Most of them would also be notable enough to sustain their own articles. The death of passengers or flight crew should further add to notability, although some hull losses with no loss of life can also be said to have increased notability (BA 038, US 1549). Mjroots (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For Information, this is the version of Cubana de Aviación Flight 310 that was nominated for deletion. Compare with the current version. Mjroots (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Im starting to get that the aviation community has developed new standards for dealing with general aviation flights even if I don't agree with them. But a major commercial airliner jet that had fatalities or some other major flaw are being forced into small sections on airport pages. So I agree with the both of you. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 22:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The point of the criteria is to be objective and non-arbitrary. They are deliberately conservative regarding standalone articles as the consensus was that the previous guidelines were far too liberal, these ones are written with the aim of not allowing myriad non-notable standalone articles but instead getting the content on more general pages. More specifically: I'm not trying to be difficult, but the original aim of these guidelines was to get away from "all accidents involving commercial aircraft are automatically notable enough for their own article", a view that I very strongly disagree with. I want to get to a stage where we have a set of guidelines that enjoy full consensus, and the best way to do this is not just to make vague comments but to be specific - what currently works and what doesn't? For what doesn't work, suggest something better. That way we can discuss specifics, and come to agreement sooner rather than later. I've been around Wikipedia for a little over 5 years now, and in that time I've seen innumerable good ideas fizzle out through extended discussion and an equal number fizzle out through lack of action. I don't want that to happen here. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you propose a criterion that allows articles for incidents that killed X people a standalone article while not allowing accidents where only X-1 people died, for non-arbitrary values of X?
 * I disagree that all hull-loss accidents are automatically notable enough for their own article, not even when restricted to just commercial aviation (istr a criteria along these lines was previously rejected). How do you allow accidents like British Airways flight 38 but not ones where a ground collision between empty planes results in one or both being written off? The aim of the current guidelines is to get these incidents included as sections of larger articles (airport, aircraft), but only get standalone articles for truly notable incidents.
 * Regarding famous people, the aim was to be far tighter than previous guidelines. Specifically if it's only the famous people that makes it newsworthy then it should go on that persons article only. It also defines what makes someone involved. Does this need revising? If so how?
 * The GA and Military sections are about right. It just the commercial section where the pendulum has swung too far. Editors may be aware of the proposed WP:RAILCRASH, where the proposal is that if a member of the public or traincrew is killed (with a few exceptions) then notability is established, whilst trying to keep the thousands of accidents involving the deaths of track maintenance staff, motorists and pedestrians down to a few articles where notability is established by other events too. There is also a get-out clause (Section D) by which accidents that do not appear to meet certain criteria may be considered on their own merits. WP:AIRCRASH does not have a get-out clause, hence the arguments at the Cubana 310 AfD. Mjroots (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've yet to see a case where a major aircraft accident didn't generate enough RS coverage to meet the WP:GNG. The question often is simply one of whether editors want to take the trouble to find the sources. Remembering that there is WP:NODEADLINE I remain unconvinced that we need elaborate rules that will, inevitably, serve to furnish justification for the deletion of such articles before they are built. LeadSongDog come howl 07:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Notability is not temporary, but on the other hand it must be proven in the article, by the contributors, through reliable sources. That's policy (a paraphrase, anyway). While there is no deadline, aricles need to be reliably sourced within a reasonable timeframe. I do find the new guidelines too complex/confusing, so much so that I don't even bother to use them at all, where I did use the old one. I think we need to try to move back towards the earlier style, but not all the way - perhaps a synthesis of the best traits of each. I'm not sure a get-out clause is needed, as it is implied with all guidelines, but a simple statement as a reminder is not a bad thing either.


 * Now some specifics: An accident involving one notable person, but not notable for any other reason, should probably be covered in the person's bio article. However, there may be a complex incident that would require greater coverage that would be the norm for a bio, while still not meeting any other notability requirements. In such cases, it would be more of a sub-article, or in WPAIR terms, a "variant" article. Also, if two or more notable persons are involved, but the incident still does not meet requirements, then an incedent articel would probably be better than duplicating the same info in two or more bios.

Thryduulf stated: "...the original aim of these guidelines was to get away from "all accidents involving commercial aircraft are automatically notable enough for their own article", a view that I very strongly disagree with. I'm don't believe the "all are notable" view was supported by the previous guidelines, as we had Deleted commercial aircraft accident articles under those guidelines. On the other hand, I think Thryduulf's view goees too far in the other direction, and that really dind't have the consesnus either. I think it was allowed to stand as a test of how the quideliens would work "in the real world". Since then, the general consesnus evolving out of the AFD discussions is that almost all commercial accidents are notable, and our guidelines should reflect that.


 * As a final suggestion, perhaps someone other than Thryduulf should take a crack at a new set of proposed guidelines this time. I think we need to see what a different point of view can produce. However, I'm not the best person to do that, especilly now, as I'm having some personal issues to deal with. - BilCat (talk) 09:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue here is accidents which lead to an airliner being written off, with or without casualties. IMO, these should all be notable enough for a mention in the article on the aircraft, airline and (if applicable) airport where the accident happened. A good majority of them should also be notable enough to sustain their own articles. Mjroots (talk) 06:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hull-loss accidents
To try and get the discussion moving again, let's talk about a specific type of accident that has been mentioned above - hull loss accidents.

To fit within the current structure, any criterion dealing specifically with hull-loss accidents would need to be part of the Causes and outcomes (C) section, given that it is an outcome. As such, as your starter for 10, I'm proposing the following new criteria C4:
 * Hull-loss - an accident or incident that results in the hull-loss of an commercial airliner on a scheduled or charter flight. This does not apply to flights operated by military organisations and/or solely for military personnel (for this see criteria M3).

This probably needs some work, for example what is a "commercial airliner". My understanding is that hull-loss accidents involving light aircraft used for general aviation are very rarely notable, and so the criteria should exclude them. Should private business jets be included? Presumably the hull-loss of a learjet on a private business flight is not automatically notable, but what about if it were something like an ATR 42? Presumably the hull loss of such an aircraft on a commerical route would fall under this category, but what if it were being used as a corporate aircraft? The ATR42 article says there have been 21 hull-loss accidents.

I'd also change the header of the section from "If the accident or incident matches criteria only in this section, then coverage will frequently be most appropriate on the article about the cause." to "...about the cause or the type of aircraft".

Please discuss. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We do have an agreed definition for commercial aircraft at WP:ADL under Definition of includable 'commercial' aircraft rather than re-invent the wheel. MilborneOne (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok yes, that looks good. The simplest thing to do would be put in the definitions section something like: "Commercial airliner" is defined at List of accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format
 * If we use that though, I think we'd need to remove the sentence about military aircraft from this criterion, and add a statement at M3 (or maybe even the introduction to the Military section) that "Aircraft chartered by the military from a civilian operator to transport troops" are excluded from that criterion as they are included in C4. This is because including such flights in both criteria would make them more notable than purely civilian accidents, which I do not believe to be the case.
 * Earlier today I nominated Trigana Air Service Flight 168 (a hull-loss accident of an ATR 42 resulting in no deaths and 2 serious injuries) for deletion - see Articles for deletion/Trigana Air Service Flight 168. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * At last the nettle is being grasped. This is the one section where I feel that the pendulum swung too far with the Beta testing. A hull loss accident is at minimum worthy of a mention under the operator and aircraft type, and also at the airport where the accident happened (if applicable). A large majority of them will also be notable enough to sustain their own articles. I've said all I'm going to say about the Trigana ATR 42 accident in the relevant AfD debate. Re the chartering of civil aircraft by the military, I disagree. If an aircraft is operating under a civil registration then it is a civil aircraft. If it operating under a military serial then it is a military aircraft. I think we are all agreed about GA, but some quite large aircraft are also bizjets - even 737's. If one of these large aircraft is lost, it should be notable enough. I think the 10 pax rule is a good one. For cargo aircraft, comparison should be made with the equivalent passenger aircraft. Carrying cargo does not reduce notability IMHO. One other issue that really needs addressing is that there is no specifically stated clause that says an accident apparently not meeting listed criteria may still be considered on its merits and could be notable enough for an article. The recent incident in Luxembourg is an example of this. Little damage caused, an aircraft and a van were on an active runway at the same time, and both had permission to be there at the time! Had the aircraft been a few inches lower when it struck the van there could have been a totally different outcome. Mjroots (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed this comment earlier. Re the Luxembourg incident, see my comments in the new "near miss" section below. Re the military charter of civilian aircraft is that they should be covered either under civil criteria or military criteria but not both (otherwise in identical accidents a military-chartered aircraft would be more notable than a civil-only aircraft, which I think we can all agree it shouldn't be). I don't have an opinion as to which it should be covered under, just that the criteria should explicitly say so that we don't get arguments in AfD discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the hull-loss criteria mentioned above should be part of the criteria for notability. Can anyone point out an airliner hull-loss crash that isn't notable?  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines are WAY too long
They are pretty good but far too wordy. We need some clear concise guidelines to start with to catch the 95% of minor, non-notable incidents that people add to articles along the lines of "oh my god, we were there, thought we were going to die!" (but they didn't die and it was just a routine emergency). Maybe add something to the preamble (like the old guidelines) which said incidents were notable if:


 * Fatalities occurred
 * An Aircraft was written off
 * Major changes were made to the way airlines, airports or aviation operates

Those are the black and white guidelines, the rest of the article could address the shades of grey in between.

84.9.36.82 (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that a clear summary would be desirable, but the problem is that there is consensus that "fatalities occurred" and "an aircraft was written off" are not on their own an indicator of notability, especially for incidents that do not involve commercial aircraft operating scheduled commercial flights. Even the "major changes" is not necessarily an indication of notability for a single incident (e.g. if it is one of a series of similar events, then it is the series not the individual incident that is notable). Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Flights vs. Crashes
I am not a project participant, so please add a note to my user talk page if you reply.

Perhaps I am just a little OCD, but I find it somewhat strange that “XX Airline Flight YY” only gets an article after a particular instance of that flight crashes or otherwise becomes notable. While I understand that Flight YY might not be notable normally, to assert “XX Airline Flight YY” means the one (out of thousands, perhaps) that crashed is a little weird.

Has any thought been given to titling these articles “XX Airline Flight YY crash” instead? I may be too pedantic, or have worked too long in the world of non-notable linked data, but it seems like a curious naming practice.

—  crism ( talk )  03:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Not really a notability issue - the naming of accident articles has been agreed by consensus and is on the main page of WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force. MilborneOne (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Automatic notability
The question of x number of deaths not conferring notability has reared its head again. Currently at AfD are aircraft accident articles involving 8, 14, and 19 deaths.

Therefore I propose that we adopt a new section - D. Mjroots (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Deaths - Any aircraft crash involving 10 or more deaths in total (air or ground), will generally be considered notable enough to sustain an article on Wikipedia. However, a death total of 0 to 9 shall not necessarily mean that the accident is non-notable. Other factors shall be taken into account in these cases.


 * The draft notability guideline still has not been approved and a number of AfDs are proving that in a lot cases it proves to be a hinderance rather than a help in establishing notability. While I appreciate your suggestion to improve it I still think that we really need to look at the whole thing again as it is far to complicated and if AfDs are a measure it is not accepted by the rest of the community. MilborneOne (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with MB1 - we need to look at this again. Your proposal, while useful, would not line up with WP:AIRCRASH-SECTION used in the case of including accidents in aircraft type articles. The other problem is that of WP:N. You can't assume that a crash of any size will or will not attract third party (usually media) refs - it is possible that a crash might meet the X number of deaths, but not be supported adequately by refs, especially if it happens in a remote area. - Ahunt (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahunt, none of what I wrote above overtakes VxRS=N. If all we can say is that an airliner crashed in the Soviet Union in 1957 killing 50-odd people, then we cannot support an article. In these cases, a mention under the aircraft type or in a list of accidents per aircraft type / mention in an article on the airline involved / mention in the article where the accident happened (as appropriate) will suffice. Mjroots (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Concur that the guidelines need to be revisited, especially in light of the recent Global consensus rulings, which effectively make project guidelines worthless as now everyone has reason to ignore them if they don't like them. Note that AIRES Flight 8250 had only one death, and that not related to injury, and is at AFD now. One look at the photo of the crash, and I think it's notable because no one else died! - BilCat (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Biography text
Moved here from main page.

World War I flying aces
As the primary writer in this niche, I have developed, and have been using the following guidelines in creating bios on these aces:

1. Notability for these aces is established by two main guidelines:

a. The ace in question has been credited with five or more air-to-air victories over an enemy aircraft on an incident by incident listing, with the victories in question originally verified by their commanding authority. For an example of one who was not covered for that reason, see http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/italy/calvello.php.

b. The ace in question has been awarded one or more decorations, awards, or honors for his actions. This is in line with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

2. Some few individuals who fail one or both of these criteria may still be covered because of the significance of their act(s), or their postwar success in a military career.

a. For an example of the first case, see Roland Garros, who had only three victories, but used the first operational machine gun synchronized to fire through the arc of a moving propeller, thus turning the fighter plane into a flying gun platform easily aimed by its pilot.

b. For an example of the second case, an ace who continued a military career after World War I, and rose to a rank equivalent to Colonel or higher is deemed notable.

User:Georgejdorner added this text to the main Aviation Notability. We need to discuss and get consensus to include. I think it looks reasonable, but I would leave off the WWI part. Criteria should apply to any time period, imo. -fnlayson (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure we do need to leave off the WWI part. Different wars = different equipment = different criteria. For WWII, five may be too low (suggest 10 as a baseline, subject to discussion). For the Korean and Vietnam wars, five may be about right, for the Falklands Conflict, 1 may be a better baseline. These concepts are sure worth a discussion, are they not? Mjroots (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not we adopt any or all of my notability guidelines above for whatever era, we must consider context.

History has already set five confirmed aerial victories as the baseline for a flying ace regardless of era, so that's a non-starter for discussion.

The bit about differing criteria is right on the money, though. For instance, no one awarded fractional victories in World War I. It was a binary scoring universe; a victor scored either one or zero. In later wars, it got to the point where air victories were fractionated to two decimal places; an ace might have 6.33 victories, for instance. I have a rough draft in progress of how victory claims were confirmed in the various national air services during World War I. I intend to add or meld this to the flying ace article when it is ready. Similar explanations for later wars would also be a great addition to the article, but I lack the expertise to write them.

And, if I may, Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories is a rich topic and an under-developed peripheral article.

Georgejdorner (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sort out your notability issues!
I have just written a very long deletion rational for UPS Airlines Flight 6 which has convinced me that the guidelines are for its deletion, and that would apply to articles like the two currently at DRV. If everyone is !voting to keep these, shouldn't you be crafting notability guidance to reflect this? I don't think every crash is notable, but then I don't think every footballer, baseball player, TV episode, etc is either, so I can only go by the guidelines and essays provided. Either that, or you should be more active with the deleters at AfD ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A revamp of the guidelines was being discussed at WP:AV, where an editor has stated he is working on new guideliens. For now, the consensus seems to be to let the issue alone, and come back to it at a later time when things have cooled down. I think you'll see why. - BilCat (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)