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. - Mailer Diablo 01:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This aviation incident is not noteworthy. – Zntrip 00:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep noteworthy Tony P 00:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Noteworthy, and notable improvements were made as a result of this incident. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 00:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How could this incident be noteworth? Two people died. Minor aviation incidents happen every day. There can't be a page for everyone. – Zntrip 00:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This isn't a vote, people. We need arguments better than "noteworthy" and "not noteworthy." If Targetter will specify the notability of the improvements made, then maybe we'll be able to actually assess notability (I say this because I'm not actually involved in flight, so I have no idea how important the changes implemented were). --Wafulz 00:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do suppose it's difficult to indicate notability when changes to flight procedures are made all the time. Previous comment withdrawn. Sorry, Shortfuse. =( --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 01:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Targetter Shortfuse 01:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -AMK152 01:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I fail to see what makes this aviation accident notable since people dying from plane accidents occur a lot. TJ Spyke 01:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Under "Aftermath", the article describes the lessons learned from the crash and how they changed aircraft operating procedures. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The last person to mention that withdrew their opinion based on the fact that the changes made were relatively minor. --Wafulz 02:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is ludicrous. Airline crashes are encyclopedic. FCYTravis 02:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Should every airplane crash that ever happened have an encyclopea article? Hundreds of planes crash every year. Two people died on this airplane. If two people die in a car crash should there be a Wikipedia article about it? – Zntrip 03:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This event is inherently verifiable based on reliable sources, including news coverage and official reports from government investigatory bodies. If we can have articles on every elementary school, articles on every single Pokemon, articles on every coin, every TV show character... why not plane crashes? I think Airwork Flight 23 is a far more interesting and poignant story than, say, this page about some irrelevant and insignificant nonexistent persona invented by a Star Trek screenwriter. FCYTravis 03:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take a look at this site: NTSB database. There are thousands of plane crashes. Should there be an article on ever single one? – Zntrip 03:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, what? We're rapidly approaching 2 million articles. Tens of thousands of articles about schools. Thousands of articles about some stupid sci-fi franchise. Thousands more articles about some other stupid sci-fi franchise. Hundreds of articles on Pokemon. You're telling me that some more articles about a few plane crashes is going to cause Wikipedia to run out of not paper? Ludicrous. FCYTravis 03:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The basic fallacy of the argumentum ad Pokémon, which is what you are propounding, is that Wikipedia's task is not to be an encyclopaedia of what you consider, subjectively, to be more "worthy" and more "important" than Pokémon. It is the world at large, not Wikipedia editors, that determines notability. Notability is not subjective. If the world at large writes more source material about Pokémon than it does about aeroplane crashes or about characters in Latin textbooks, because the world at large considers them more notable, then Wikipedia has to simply reflect that. If you think that the world at large has an unbalanced perspective, then it is the world at large that you need to change, by persuading it to write more source material on what you personally consider to be worthy and important. Wikipedia is not an instrument for changing human knowledge, only for reflecting it. Uncle G 13:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This article is reliably and verifiably sourced - far more verifiably sourced than any article on Pokemon ever will, given that no government agency will ever compile an accident report about the death of a Pokemon in battle, looking to determine causes and find ways to prevent such Pokemon deaths in the future, as is the case with this crash of an air-carrier-operated airliner. FCYTravis 07:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wrong. I suggest that you compare this article's mere 2 sources to Bulbasaur#Notes_and_references. You are also deliberately placing a false restriction the scope of the sources in order to bias the argument in favour of your erroneous assertion. Uncle G 15:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, you are right. I am deliberately comparing an official government report from the National Transportation Safety Board to a freaking strategy guide for some stupid card game. Bravo, Uncle G, for exposing my trickery. Bravo indeed. I eagerly await the formation of the National Pokemon Safety Board which will investigate and fact-find all deaths of Pokemon in battle. FCYTravis 17:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Your argumentum ad Pokémon has now fallen apart completely, since it is clearly not based upon reliability of sources, but is based upon thinly veiled personal biases. We don't include or exclude subjects here based upon what editors personally like or dislike. Uncle G 13:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the majority of ships that sink do get articles. Akradecki 03:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that the question be clarified to: Should there be an article on every single crash of a 4-ton or larger aircraft that leads to the complete loss of the aircraft and all aboard due to a non-trivial cause with a non-trivial aftermath? —BozoTheScary 03:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - non-notable frequently occuring event --Ineffable3000 03:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, article on a crash of a 4-ton or larger aircraft that leads to the complete loss of the aircraft. Kappa 04:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Nom has failed to assert why incident is not suitable for wikipedia.
• Keep and rename to Airwork Flight 23 Crash. If the number of air crash pages ever exceeds the number of Pokemon pages, wake me up. Vizjim 04:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Saying that if there are a lot of Pokemon and Star Trek articles tons of plane crash articles wouldn’t be a bad thing sound like fuzzy logic. An article about every plane crash isn’t possible or practical. Should there be an article about every car crash or ship that sunk? I guess it better than Pokemon, so why not. Is that how you justify your statements? – Zntrip 05:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Kappa, FCYTravis, et al. And to respond to Zntrip, yes, it is possible to have an article about every plane crash involving an air carrier (passenger or cargo) with fatalities, and an official investigation, report, and news stories. (I wouldn't necessarily extend notability to every general aviation crash, on the other hand, without some particular reason for an article.) --MCB 05:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Verifiable, NOR and reasonably NPOV article about a real-world event of some arguable importance. I'd prefer a clearer title, though. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failing notability. A Google for "airwork"+"flight 23" gets ONE hit, unrelated. Doing a search for "airwork flight 23" gets ZERO hits. Yes, two official reports were generated per article references, but even they don't reference it as "flight 23". I might guess there were local NZ newspaper articles written, but the fact nothing else appears to be circulated is symptomatic of lack of notability. I fail to see any substantive changes to flight ops from this one accident, the NZ report describes changing checklists, and making sure fuel balancing is done correctly. The fact it is possible to have an article about every plane crash doesn't mean there has to be one. Tychocat 10:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Since there is a common theme to this set of airplane crash AfD, there will be an equally common theme to my replies I think it's bad precedence to start putting a "death threashold" for the notability of a plane crash. I would say a crash with any fatality is notable. Ideally entries are written because they will be of encyclopedic interest and value to others to read. A plane crash with fatalities (even a small number) affects alot of a people--the community where the crash took place, people actually involved in the crash as well as friends/families, anyone who is interested in the aviation crash history of a particular airline, and those people who like reading about crashes anyways. Someone was originally interested in the topic enough to write the article in the first place. I can easily see many others who will have continual interest in reading it. 205.157.110.11 10:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are all fallacious arguments. Saying that something affects a lot of people and therefore merits inclusion is a fallacious argument because there are quite a lot of traffic accidents every single day that affect a lot of people, that cannot even be verified after the fact. Saying that something includes a fatality and therefore merits inclusion is a fallacious argument because there are many fatalities every day, the reporting of which would turn Wikipedia into the very memorial that by policy it is not. Saying that because someone was interested enough to write the article and it merits inclusion is a fallacious argument, because people write all sorts of original research about things that they are interested in (mainly themselves, of course, but not universally) every day.

    An argument that isn't fallacious is an argument that addresses the sources, as Tychocat does. The provenance and depth of the available sources is what should determine whether something merits inclusion. Uncle G 13:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Do car crashes get the kind of media coverage that airline crashes do? I would say the relative rarity of airline crashes in approximation to car crashes plays a major role in that. Plus the public has a perpetual fascination with airlines which makes the notability of commercial airline crashes with fatalities all the more enduring. 205.157.110.11 07:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some car crashes get lots of media coverage. Some air traffic accidents get no media coverage. Trying to cover all such accidents with a single blanket provision is another fallacious argument. Once again: Please address the sources, as Tychocat does. Uncle G 15:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • • Uncle G. How many car crashes get national media coverage? or even regional coverage outside of it's individual market? How many car crashes trigger mandatory government investigations? Now contrast that with commercial airline crashes which always get's coverage if there is a fatality. (If it bleeds, it leads) and more often then not the coverage is regional if not national and they always trigger a mandatory government investigation even if it's pilot error. It's a fallacious comparison. 205.157.110.11 07:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not to speak for Uncle G, but the argument that newspaper standards should also be our standards is also fallacious. This is an encyclopedia, with stated guidelines and policies for inclusion of articles. Can you address this issue in terms of WP policies? Tychocat 11:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's a fallacious comparison. — Then why did you make it? (Hint: "traffic" != "car".) For the third time: Please address the sources. Uncle G 13:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • An easy survey above shows that you were the one who introduced the car crash comparision to try and nullify my contention that fatalities in a commericial airline crash is a major thing and adds markedly to the signifigance of the event-and by extension it's encyclopedic merit. Your retort was that my contention was akin to making Wikipedia a memorial and your introduced your fallacious comparision of a car crash. Ironically, your fallacious comparison only strengthens my contention because in that absurdity of your comparision the overwhelming signifigance of commericial jet airline crashes is shown clear. The media coverage and the mandatory government investigations they trigger set them apart from other events in a signifigant manner.
              

As for Wikipedia policy, there is no policy or guideline that inclusion violates. The closest anyone has come is to try and stretch WP:NOT as either a memorial or an indiscriminate collection. The memorial is a straw man since no one is advocating a memorial to the particular individuals but rather that the fact that there is fatalities enhances the overall signifigance of the event (i.e. the newscoverage and the mandatory government investigations). With the second, far from being indiscriminate articles like this chronicle specific and signifigant events for all the reasons that have been expounded on before.205.157.110.11 05:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as circumstances are "interesting" from an air crash perspective. I disagree that all air crashes resulting in deaths are inherently notable -- there were ~400 fatality crashes in the last year alone![1] Note, reported. Database does not contain all crashes. Scheduled flights with fatalities is more manageable at 9. Thus, my general rule of thumb would be scheduled flights with fatalities. That would still exclude this one, though. In any case I definitely discourage articles about non-fatal incidents (like the one a few weeks back about that guy who was arrested for freaking out). I'm just suggesting a metric for judging stuff that should be a "speedy keep".--Dhartung | Talk 11:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Dhartung that not all flights with fatalities are noteworthy, those by scheduled service (cargo included) are presumably so, and nothing has rebutted this presumption. Carlossuarez46 20:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Personally, I would consider any fatal airplane crash notable. Even if you don't accept this, as others pointed out, this crash led to new safety measures being implemented, so it had a lasting effect on the industry. Oh, and to those of you invoking WP:POKEMON: let's not go there if possible :) -Elmer Clark 21:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Any fatal plane crash? Is that your resoning? What about any fatal car crash? – Zntrip 01:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP has plenty of other articles on airliner crashes. Saying this one isn't notable assumes some kind of arbitrary threshold has been set. How many people have to die, Admiral?! --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • while I appreciate the heartfelt italics, I think the issue is not body count, but notability per stated WP standards. Can you address the article in terms of those, or can you only invent your own standards? Tychocat 04:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete someone may prove me wrong, but although a plane disintegrated, there was little news generated, and the consequences would appear to be really quite minor adjustments to flight procedures. Ohconfucius 01:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Investigation had an impact on the checklists and rules for the Swearington Metro aircraft, so the event has significance which goes beyond just a normal and sadly all-too-common small plane crash. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, inadequate rationale for deletion. — CharlotteWebb 16:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. There's more to this story than the article talks about. The SA-227 has had some chronic autopilot issues that this touches on. And, fuel management is an important issue in aviation, and this incident is an important "lessons learned" example. Although only 2 died (fortunately!) the parameters of the incident, the crew inputs and reactions and the ultimate outcome make it, from an aviation perspective, quite notable. Akradecki 03:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and general discussion have been moved to the discussion page to keep things orderly here. Akradecki 03:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Discussion restored. Please do not refactor AFD discussion in this way. Uncle G 13:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Mako 06:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. References have been provided from multiple reliable and reputable sources. If those sources have deemed this incident worth writing about then surely the incident is notable. Mako 06:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nom must specify why the crash is not WP-worthy. --Anthony5429 07:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. I am mystified by this nom. --Guinnog 09:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. If number of fatalities was the sole criterion, there'd be no article on Aloha Airlines Flight 243, and notable incidents like Windsor and Jakarta wouldn't get a look in. Cheers, Ian Rose 12:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am also mystified by this nomination. Orsini 16:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dhartung. Scheduled flights that have fatalities are notable. They're taken seriously by the government and investigated in a way that demonstrates their notablity. I also agree with the anonymous poster that even an unintentional "death threashold" is something that should be avoided. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 17:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is exactly the sort of thing Wikipedia is good to look up for. Commercial jet liners with passenger deaths are very notabable. --Eileen R 23:17, 13 September 2006 (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.