Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/UPS Airlines Flight 6: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:23, 5 September 2010 editMickMacNee (talk \| contribs)23,386 edits →UPS Airlines Flight 6: cmt← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:38, 5 September 2010 edit undoWikireader41 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,522 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 37:		Line 37:
	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 ], a lot of the entries for the 2000s and beyond look like total news trivia. And that is why these Afd's are killing Misplaced Pages as a genuinely relevant encyclopoedia. ] (]) 14:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)		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 ], a lot of the entries for the 2000s and beyond look like total news trivia. And that is why these Afd's are killing Misplaced Pages as a genuinely relevant encyclopoedia. ] (]) 14:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
	{{collapse bottom}}		{{collapse bottom}}
			*'''Keep'' as per Mjroots. yet another waste of time by an editor who doesn't seem to have read ]--] (]) 14:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:38, 5 September 2010

UPS Airlines Flight 6

Parallel AFD discussions:

Articles for deletion/United Parcel Service Flight 6

Articles for deletion/UPS Airlines Flight 6

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

Per Misplaced Pages: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)

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 Misplaced Pages Guideline extending the interpretation of WP:GNG and WP:NOT#NEWS 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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)
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. Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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. (Gabinho 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)

Comment.

A long comment on the relevance of investigations etc. Read ir not, I don't care, it's more for my sanity, and proving to future generations that not everybody interpretted N in the way that this Afd is perfectly showing often happens in aircrash articles MickMacNee (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages as a genuinely relevant encyclopoedia. MickMacNee (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

A long comment on the relevance of investigations etc. Read ir not, I don't care, it's more for my sanity, and proving to future generations that not everybody interpretted N in the way that this Afd is perfectly showing often happens in aircrash articles MickMacNee (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Categories: