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 delete.  Sandstein  13:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Air Cargo Carriers Flight 1260[edit]

Air Cargo Carriers Flight 1260 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Tragic but not notable cargo plane accident. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Nothing in the refs cited show that this is anything more than WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Very common occurrence with no lasting effects beyond the deaths of the two people involved. No more notable than any single car collision with a stationary object that kills two people. - Ahunt (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under category G5 of the CSD as a creation by a sockpuppet of permanently banned User:Ryan kirkpatrick with no substantial edits by others - all edits by other users have been to fix mistakes by the creator or related to notability and this AfD. If speedy deletion is declined, then it should be deleted for lack of notability as per the two persons' arguments above anyway. YSSYguy (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - iregardless of who started the article the event is still notable, aircraft accidents do not happen every day. Happening as recently as it did and with the investigation ongoing there is no reason not to expect an expansion in content in the future. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the size of the aircraft makes it relevant. Wykx (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - All aviation accidents should be added to Wikipedia for further reference in the future for other future Wiki Users.GoMan195531 4:31 PM (MT-Mountain Time), May 7, 2017. —Preceding undated comment added 22:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• None of those arguments hold water. "Keep because it might become notable in the future", "Keep because it's bigger than some smaller aircraft", "Keep because Wikipedia should document every aircraft crash ever" - no. YSSYguy (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, those are all very spurious arguments and not based upon policy or guidelines. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we don't report on every accident that happens, just on ones that have some sort of lasting effect in terms of changes to procedures, airworthiness directives of similar. We don't have articles on every boating accident, car accident or train accident. Why not? Because they are very common occurrences, just like this accident. - Ahunt (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There have been only 2 accidents of plane of this size so far this year so it is not so common. Moreover in large aviation accident, there is always an inquiry with some recommandations to the industry. Wykx (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not a large aircraft. Large aircraft are defined as having a gross take-off weight of 300,000 lbs of more, the Shorts 330-200 is 22,900 lbs. - Ahunt (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There have been at least fourteen accidents involving aircraft of this size this year and every aircraft accident is investigated regardless of how small the aircraft is; and nowhere on Wikipedia does it say those arbitrary criteria establish notability. YSSYguy (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasnt meaning Heavy (aeronautics) whch doesn't even include some A300 or A321. At least Shorts 330-200 is definitely a medium and not light. Size of the aircraft implies that the number of passengers potentially impacted in a single-flight is higher and thus is notable. This is for example notable that such an aircraft type doesn't have recorders. Wykx (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The carriage of flight recorders is mandatory for certain classes of aircraft engaged in certain types of operation, therefore the lack of recorders means that the FAA decided in advance that it is not necessary to conduct a detailed investigation in the event of this aircraft crashing. YSSYguy (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think it is because this particular aircraft was built before 1997 but for the same models built later on I think it is mandatory to have one. Wykx (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no Short 330s built post-1997, production ended in 1992. YSSYguy (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - not a private plane. All cargo accident are important even if with a small number of deaths. - EugεnS¡m¡on 06:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Deaths in an accident", "owned by a company" and "in commercial use" do not automatically confer notability, what counts is that there is significant coverage; this crash has not generated such coverage, there has been more discussion at this AfD than of the event itself. YSSYguy (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the US networks/newspapers have reported it and even following steps of the NSTB investigation, with articles during the last four days. Isn't it enough?? Wykx (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. That Wikipedia policy spells it out, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." - Ahunt (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So does it mean we have to delete all articles that are not at least one year-old to check enduring notability? There is not only news coverage but also specialized aviation sites that are highliting this crash. Wykx (talk) 09:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Policy requires that only accidents that have enduring notability are kept on Wikipedia. We don't have articles on every car accident in which two people are killed, nor boating accident, nor bicycle, train, or any other kind of accident, unless there is some indication that something changed as a result of the accident, like procedures, laws, regulations, products recalls, airworthiness directives or something similar. Why would we treat aircraft accidents as if everyone is notable when no other transportation accidents are treated that way? Just because the media loves sensationalism and jumps all over every aircraft accident doesn't mean Wikipedia does, because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Despite your claim that the aviation media is covering this accident it is telling that in fact the world's lead aviation media sites, including www.avweb.com, www.aopa.org and www.flyingmag.com have not covered this accident. - Ahunt (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avweb publishes only these informations a month later... AOPA is centered on smaller aircrafts. Another site like flightglobal has reported it on [1]. Wykx (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Avweb publishes only these informations a month later" - no, that is not correct. For instance they published the much more notable ICON A5 crash the same day it happened, as did AOPA and Flying. The reason none of those leading aviation news outlets didn't cover it is precisely the same reason we are debating deleting the article here, because is is a commonplace event with no lasting effects and not notable. The Flight Global article you cited also shows that there is nothing notable about the accident, no indication it will lead to any changes in anything. - Ahunt (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think it may be too soon for this article to appear on Wikipedia yet. Very little is known about the crash yet (such as mechanical faults etc), and even if these are revealed, it's not going to be anything more than a tragic accident, and nothing more than newspaper filler. ↅ𝜞 _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 21:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - for reasons explained by Eugεn S¡m¡on and Wykx. Ouseriv (talk) 02:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:AIRCRASH. Nothing, as yet, to indicate it was anything other than a routine accident. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I dont see anything noteworthy in this accident that would pass the bar for a stand-alone article, light cargo aircraft crash rather frequently so would need something out of the norm to be included. Might be worth a mention at List of fatal accidents to commercial cargo aircraft but that list if a bit neglected. MilborneOne (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There are lots of accidents involving small aircraft like the Short 330 and are mentioned on the Short 330 and Short 360 pages. There are also lots of other small planes that have been mentioned but not had actual articles written about them. This should be deleted as it doesn't differ from the other crashes and there is nothing out of the ordinary about it. Somebody created this article straight off the news without researching it properly and if this crash results in a big revelation or change to the aviation industry it could be considered for re-entry but at the moment nothing warrants an article on this crash. Flashjacket348 (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As WP:AIRCRASH explains it, articles related to incidents are best dedicated to those that result in changes in design, prodedures, or regulations. While notability can be largely subjective, change is not something that cannot happen during (or right after) an investigation. However, a deletion will not make this content disappear, as it is linked to two different cargo airline articles; its content can be included there. -SteveCof00 (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable enough - per reasons given above. K347 (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Sario528 (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIRCRASH has been cited here several times now. However the lead of that essay clearly states:

"This essay includes generally accepted criteria for when to add mention of aircraft accidents to articles about airports, airlines and aircraft type articles.

By consensus this should not be used to determine whether a stand-alone article should exist or not. If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article it may also 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.

Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting." (my italics)

I think that because this accident can certainly be included in an airport, airline or aircraft article then the question of whether a stand-alone article should exist in addition to these is about the general notability criteria and I think this article can be kept.K347 (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Then what about all the Shorts 330 and Shorts 360 crashes that are similar to this one? They haven't been included as full articles but are mentioned on aircraft and airline pages, with a few involving Air Cargo Carriers. Why aren't these included as articles? Why aren't you creating pages for all of them? If you check you will find at least 5 similar accidents. If any important details or major safety changes come about as a result of this accident, then it can be re-included. For the time being it can just be mentioned in the accidents and incidents sections on the Shorts 330 and 360 pages, and various airline and airport articles. It could also be included on the list of commercial cargo aircraft accidents and incidents but it depends on the criteria. Flashjacket348 (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- no lasting significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : WP:AIRCRASH, though only an essay lays out sensible criteria for aviation accident articles. This clearly falls outside that essay's bounds. Actual policy WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER clearly place this article in Delete--Petebutt (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - After all the discussion above, Petebutt gives the most cogent and succinct argument: fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 26 May 2017 (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.