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. --- Deville (Talk) 06:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohawk Airlines Flight 405[edit]

This incident this article describes is not noteworthy as many plane crashes have resulted in low fatalities and not every single one can have an encyclopedia entry. – Zntrip 01:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Crash appeared accidental and no assertion of flight procedure improvements was made. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 02:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reversed to Keep per WP:POKEMON --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 01:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Another encyclopedic, verifiable, sourced article on an airline crash. FCYTravis 02:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Deaths (and a number of them in this case) makes it notable. If there were no deaths it would not be notable. Factual, verifiable, notable, keep per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia. Megapixie 03:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't every one have an entry (presuming the entries are good and sources exist)? Are we running out of disk space or something? I seriously doubt that. --W.marsh 04:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nothing wrong with the article. Kappa 04:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per FCYTravis. --MCB 05:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments above. At most, tabular information could be merged into Mohawk Airlines Robert A.West (Talk) 07:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge somehow. I think fatal air accidents are only notable to the extent of the fatalities they cause or unusual circumstances that surround their occurence. The list/table restructuring proposal made at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mohawk_Airlines_Flight_411 is interesting. That would make somewhat orphaned information like this much more useful. --S0uj1r0 07:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor air crash due possibly to mechanical failure, with some fatalities and some contributory negligence. Ohconfucius 10:14, 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 10:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hm, looks like someone's a little careless with the cut-and-paste. Tychocat 11:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch. My apologies. 205.157.110.11 07:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep using my speedy keep rule: scheduled flight with fatalities. --Dhartung | Talk 11:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm extrapolating a bit from WP:NOT and other guidelines and policies, but the article fails to show notability per lacking multiple third-party non-trivial articles, and fails to show any lasting contribution to air safety or flight operations (no recommendations at all, in the report cited). I get 38 general Google hits from "mohawk airlines flight 405", of which only SIX are distinct, of which only ONE is relevant (a list of plane crashes, I see User:Blood_red_sandman jumping for joy). I refuse to get into a body-count as the sole arbiter for notability; rather, I see a case-by-case discussion for each article, as it has been. Tychocat 11:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an article on a scheduled flight with fatalities, thus not indiscriminate information. Kappa 16:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Per above. Storm05 19:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Scheduled airline crashes with fatalities are notable. Carlossuarez46 21:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - How many people have to die, Admiral?! --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None, by stated WP notability standards which make no mention of fatalities. I refuse to reduce this to a body count. Tychocat 04:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC):[reply]

Comment It should be noted that there is currently no notability standards for airline crashes (not even an essay). What we have is a substantial event involving a commercial airline crash that resulted in loss of life and triggered mandatory investigations and resulting media coverage. In the absence of a current guideline, I do think the above plays a large consideration in the notability and merit of inclusion. I do encourage the development of such an essay but I think the one precedence that no one wants to see come out of this is some sort of "body count threshold" (i.e. so many people have to die to be considered notable) being connected. 205.157.110.11 09:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, there is no specific standard for air crashes, but that's like saying there's no specific standard for a specific company, book, or person, when the general WP policies and guidelines still apply. To act like we need to reinvent the wheel for every pet issue misses the points that we're still bound by WP:NOT, or simple extension of other policies and guidelines. One point that looks very applicable is from WP:BIO, which asks whether there has been any lasting contribution to the field. It's clear in this case there has not. Also, if you don't want to reduce this to a body count, then don't. I haven't, and I don't see why you keep waving the dead about when you say you don't want to. Tychocat 14:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between inferring that there is notability because a fatality is involved in a signifigant event and a "death threshold". One is acknowledging a facet of an event that adds to the signifigance and the other is setting up a measuring bar like a carnvival ride that says "You must have X number of people die before you can be included in this encyclopedia.". Far from "waving the dead about", I'm contending for the former and strongly advocating against the later. 205.157.110.11 07:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Then we agree that fatalities have nothing to do with notability. Let us move on. Tychocat 12:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the same reasons as Airwork Flight 23. --- The Bethling ^(Talk)
Keep, high-quality article; absolutely no valid reason for deletion provided.--SB | T 00:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These crashes are all major events and should be covered here. --JJay 19:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; the article is poor (it doesn't even mention where the crash occured, other than a quick note in the infobox), but a plane flown by a moderately sucessful airline crashing into a large US city with loss of life sounds fairly notable to me. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 21:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A scheduled flight with fatalities is significant. Brianski 22:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Mohawk Airlines Flight 411 to form "Mohawk Airlines Crashes" or similar Markovich292 04:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - important crash on several fronts. First, notability: it had NTSB investigation with a full hearing and an extensive report. Most minor aviation accidents, even with fatalities involved, don't get federal NTSB investigation (local FAA district office alone investigates many/most) and then many of those with NTSB investigation don't get a public hearing. So this one ranks near the top in that department, which relates to notability, since NTSB is a political body that invests its limited investigative resources (to some extent) according to the perceived public importance of the case (e.g. number of casualties, public figures or celebrities involved, etc.). Also, there were several important considerations in the accident itself that make it notable technically. First, the real causes of the 2 separate technical malfunctions that led to the crash are both unknown, which is fairly rare. Also, the crash worthiness aspects led to recommended improvements in that area. In addition, the actual proximate cause of the accident, i.e. lack of crew coordination and division of labor, led to a general recommendation in that area (which unfortunately didn't help much until some other accidents re-inforced the modern concept of CRM). In all, this is an important crash with unusual (undetermined) causes as well as important safety recommendations. The article does require work, however. Crum375 00:20, 17 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.