Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caribbean Airlines Flight 523 (2nd nomination)

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. v/r - T P 14:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Airlines Flight 523

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article handles a runway overshoot leading to a full right off of the aircraft, but with no fatalities. It was in the news extensively -for a few days- and now (> 1 month later) no wider implications to the airline or aircraft industry have been shown. As such it seems merely a news-item which is not valid per WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:notability has not been shown. L.tak (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete as nominator L.tak (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a hull-loss it meets WP:AIRCRASH, the cited refs also show that it meets WP:GNG and WP:N. - Ahunt (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit confused how it meets the essay wp:aircrash. That says for stand alone articles "If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article above it may be notable enough for a stand-alone article if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports.", so it requires a specific notability (including WP:NOTNEWS rationale). Could you indicate how notnews is satisfied (or where I am mistaken in my reasoning?)L.tak (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As explained below, it meets the AIRCRASH, "The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport;" to be included in a type article and also "If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article above it may be notable enough for a stand-alone article if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports." for a stand alone article. As far as NOTNEWS goes there will be further reports issued on this accident as time goes by, no airliner hull loss is simply news reports and nothing more, which is what AIRCRASH acknowledges and why it differentiates airliners from light aircraft, which often do not have any further follow up. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: As it falls within the scope of these WikiProjects, notification of this AfD discussion has been made at both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft - Ahunt (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; extensive coverage by independent sources show that it passes the GNG. However, WP:AIRCRASH is just an essay, not policy. Also, as far as standalone articles are concerned it only says "If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article it may be notable enough for a stand-alone article if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports". So, the essay is redundant here, as it doesn't set a lower bar than the broader rules on notability which have been agreed by the community. bobrayner (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the nomination is too soon after the last one IMHO. The airframe was written off, which adds weight to the case for a stand-alone article. Whilst a large number of deaths makes weight for the case for notability, a lack of them does not necessarily mean a lack of notability - British Airways Flight 009, British Airways Flight 38. Investigations into aircrashes take time, 2 years is not uncommon, and in exceptional cases can take over 8 years. Also, keep per arguments raised in the original AfD discussion. Mjroots (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here's the same answer as the last deletion discussion: The airliner broke in half. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents, the longstanding notability guideline for airline accidents is that if the hull is written off the accident is notable and the article is to be kept. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for keeping asking again about it, but where exactly did you read that in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents? I saw "loss of hull" nowhere to be interpreted as an argument for an article to be standalone; could you point me to the paragraph? L.tak (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the second bullet of WP:AIRCRASH in all three sections. N419 BH 04:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But those bullets are preceded by "should only be included in airline/airport articles if:" and thus specifically do not handle standalone articles, where -accordng to wp:aircrash- the normal notability rules apply (including the events-guideline...)... L.tak (talk) 05:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, specifically, "If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article above it may be notable enough for a stand-alone article if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports." As has been already argued here, hull loss pretty much equals notability sufficient for an article, even if that isn't what the guidelines says verbatim. In the end what we're dealing with are guidelines, not policies. N419 BH 05:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for clarifying the line of thinking. I think it makes clear we agree i) that the second paragraph of the guideline applies (as you have quoted) and ii) that GNG/EVENT/NOTNEWS should be satisfied. We just disagree whether "loss of hull + signficant -shortterm- news coverage + (a yet to be concluded investigation)" makes enough claim to satisfy GNG/EVENTS/NOTNEWS... L.tak (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I haven't actually !voted here, but I would generally consider the hull-loss of an airliner to be notable. The other thing about aviation accidents is there is almost always a highly reliable, detailed, and authoritative source: the accident report. N419 BH 06:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oops, I should look better at the signatures! agreed on the quality of the reports/sources in general (and in this case) though... L.tak (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough real-world coverage to pass WP:GNG. Lugnuts (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly meets WP:GNG. Haus^Talk 08:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:GNG (a subset of the WP:N guideline): If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. The article satisfies that criteria, as it has significant coverage in reliable sources such as AP, BBC, CNN and FlightGlobal. In most cases, an airliner hull loss will also meet those criteria. While it's not a deciding factor in the absence of meeting the other guidelines, it is a good indicater of "likely notability". - BilCat (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets the guidelines at WP:GNG. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Does this really need to run a full 7 days? - BilCat (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of preventing further WP:DRAMA down the road, I'm gonna go ahead and say yes. N419 BH 20:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, let's let it run the full time and get a clear result and perhaps we can avoid doing this again in another two weeks time. - Ahunt (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the previous one ran for just 4 hours only and was speedily kept. That's a different perspective (I had the impression not enough people could way in and the deletion was/is justified) than if we would now go for a snow keep after 4 days, which I could support in view of the clear consensus... L.tak (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

L.tak, if you accept the arguments for keeping the article, you could strike through your nomination and state that you have withdrawn the nomination. Any editor would then be free to close the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.