Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 New Zealand Fletcher FU24 crash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 New Zealand Fletcher FU24 crash

[edit]
2010 New Zealand Fletcher FU24 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article's notability appears to rest on the presence of international news coverage, although they of course are all simply repeating the primary source coverage, suggesting this is a case of notability through bombardment using many newspapers. Given that newspapers will always give coverage to accidents where multiple tourists are killed, and none of the dead are apparently wiki-notable, and apparently neither was the skydiving company, then I think this is a pretty weak claim for showing this article is anything more than just a news article, here today, forgotten tomorrow. I cannot see how this is ever going to be anything other than an orphan, it has pretty much no relevance to any other article except the plane model, and possibly the glacier, so I see absolutely no point keeping it for all time. As ever, if anything historically notable emerges, such as a change in skydiving laws because of it, then I have no issue with recreation with the article reflecting that. MickMacNee (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Worst plane-crash accident in New Zealand for a long time and will have lasting notability, which is covered by the WP:RS meeting WP:GNG. Lugnuts (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 19:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lugnuts. In terms of death toll, this is the seventh biggest air crash in New Zealand history, and the biggest since 1989. Hardly a "here today, forgotten tomorrow" incident.Grutness...wha? 23:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that really a relevant factoid though? When you get into such small death tolls, due to the nature of NZ aviation no doubt, such rankings are pretty irrelevant it seems. That is well illustrated by this list, where you can go up and down the rankings by many places, just by having one more, or one less, death, and which is in the most part, made up of forgotten, non-notable incidents (except maybe to create a basic list of all deadly NZ aircrashes). And when the NZHerald profiled "New Zealand's worst air disasters" in 2008, even it could only bother to list 6 incidents, with the bottom one having eight deaths, one less than this. This article exists due to NEWS coverage. When you eliminate that as proof of historical notability, you get to the reality of what historical notability is all about - neatly demonstrated by the fact that of those 6 accidents, Wikipedia only bothers to cover the top two with stand alone articles. MickMacNee (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Three of the other six, actually, not two - and a fourth one used to have but is now a section in another article. Not that that's particularly relevant given that what is or isn't elsewhere on Wikipedia is not a good argument in a deletion process debate. And you're getting into circular arguments if you say that a list of notable historic crashes is only notable because of the media interest in it, when the only reason for the media interest is that they were notable. Air crashes of this type are rare in New Zealand, and as such, and because of the size of this one, it stands out as being notable. Given that one air crash smaller was on the list (presumably the one about seven years ago in mid-Canterbury), there is indication that smaller crashes than this one are not likely to be forgotten quickly (as such this meets one of the criteria at the guideline - not policy, but guideline - WP:AIRCRASH). If the consensus is deletion, I'd suggest that information from this be merged into the Fox Glacier article. Grutness...wha? 07:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    AVIATION is not a WP:Guideline. And as explained in WP:OSE, if you state that statistic x is a mark of notability, and the presence/absence of other directly comparable stuff on Wikipedia does not appear to support that, then it is a valid argument. Even if it is 3 out of 6. I do not dispute there is continuing media interest due to rarity of deadly aircrashes in NZ - but this really does only support the notability of a list topic per WP:N, such as List of air accidents in New Zealand by death toll. The ongoing coverage is not directly addressed towards just one of those incidents, which can be re-ordered just thru one extra death. If this isn't true, then there should be some evidence that there has been ongoing signficiant and direct coverage of that 8 dead crash, both before and after it got dumped from the 'top 6'. MickMacNee (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "AVIATION is not a WP:Guideline" Neither is the Bombardment (BOMBARDMENT! BOMBARDMENT!!) and the 10999Newspapers you cited. Lugnuts (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "AVIATION is not a guideline" - I never said it was.WP: AIRCRASH is the relevant guideline. It's listed as such at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Notability, in the section "Guidelines by subject", and is further referred to as a guideline in its first sentence. In any case, since it's clearly not a policy, if you say it's not a guideline either than what is it? A handy rule-of-thumb? Or just a suggestion? In either case, it becomes a far weaker argument for deleting this article. Grutness...wha? 21:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Grutness - I was quoting MickMcNee, not yourself. IE he's using two "guidelines" that aren't actually guidelines at all, in his deletion rationale, and then countering WP:AIRCRASH with that same logic. Lugnuts (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I of course meant AIRCRASH. Despite what the text says, it is not a WP:Guideline, it is an WP:ESSAY, and is tagged as such. Which means that it has not yet been demonstrated to have sufficient support to be cited in discussions like Afd with any degree of confidence that it reflects wide community consensus, and/or does not contradict already existing Policies and Guidelines, such as NOT#NEWS. And not that I'm even sure which criteria you meant, but if you actually read the essay, just meeting one criteria of it is not a green light to create an article. MickMacNee (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it's an essay, a new article doesn't necessarily have to mean any of those criteria. This isn't policy or even apparently a guideline. it's just an essay. If new articles were created according to the stipulations of all essays across this site, we'd have some very odd articles indeed. A far more relevant criterion might be the one at WP:NOTNEWS, which states Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. [... R]outine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I do not see exactly how this would apply to the biggest air crash in a country in 21 years. This cannot be described as "routine news coverage", and is certainly of enduring notability. Grutness...wha? 06:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's routine in the sense that it is coverage that is always going to happen for such an event. Simply being in the news, does not convey notability. NOT#NEWS has been used to delete a hell of a lot more things than people just trying to record the day's sports results or celebrity gossip, as detailed in WP:EVENT. And I've already addressed the idea that 'biggest' in this situation means anything except a nice byline. MickMacNee (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed you have. I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now. Biggest in this circumstance means far more than a "nice byline". It means "biggest", and as such is clearly not routine. I don't see exactly how being covered in the news is exactly meant to rule this out from being a notewotrhy event, either. Yes, coverage is always going to happen in this sort of event - news coverage is likely to occur in any major event. In pure logical terms, where M=media coverage, W=Wikipedia-notable event and W'=Wikipedia-nonnotable event, you're trying to argue here that If W or W' -> M, then M-> W'. It doesn't wash. Grutness...wha? 01:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, aircraft crashes during skydiving ops are not infrequent and nothing about this one makes it stand out. It completely fails to meet guidelines at WP:AIRCRASH and also falls foul of WP:NOTNEWS; while terrible for those directly involved, this is another brief flash-in-the-pan that will soon fade into obscurity. At the risk of my own falling foul of WP:OTHERSTUFF and related policies, another article about an NZ GA aircraft crash (a chartered Piper Seneca that crashed in 1988 that also killed nine), was deleted a few months ago for failing to meet standards of notability. YSSYguy (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you the Afd link? It could be informative. PS, AIRCRASH is not a WP:Guideline. MickMacNee (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have thought to post it; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1988 North Island plane crash. I am aware that AIRCRASH is as yet not a set of guidelines (I could hardly be unaware after other recent air crash AfD discussions), but as the French say "faute de mieux". Anyway, back to this discussion; this happened on the weekend and it's now Monday in Australia, where media coverage has basically ceased despite there being an Australian among the dead. YSSYguy (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sad, unusually high death toll for NZ, but really not that notable in Wikipedia terms. It might possibly be worth revisiting this next year if the aviation inquiry finds anything of note. --Avenue (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't burst into flame until after it hit the ground, so there is no apparent cause as far as I can see except possibly a classic "stall after take off" scenario. At any rate it is completely useless for you or me to surmise the cause from some erroneous news reports and a one-sentence accident bulletin. YSSYguy (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still notable then. No other seriously fatal aircrash in New Zealand has occurred on takeoff. Look through any list, and it's invariably "Plane flies into X", whether X be Mt Erebus, power lines, a hill, or the ground. Limegreen (talk) 10:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it's now notable because it's unusually commonplace? YSSYguy (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reverse. Limegreen (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commonly unusual? Crash immediately after take-off is a very common occurrence among light aircraft. I can name three people I have known who have died in aircraft that have crashed just after take-off. I have witnessed eight such crashes myself, one of them fatal: a Mooney 201, a Cessna A-37, a Lockheed Ventura, a Klemm Swallow, a Lake Buccaneer, a Mudry CAP-10, a Piper Seneca and a Pereira Osprey. Not even the fatal accidents warrant a WP article. I have been in a light aircraft that crashed after take-off. I have worked on another dozen-or-so light aircraft that crashed immediately after take-off. I am aware of many more, including four that crashed on skydiving ops, one of which killed twice as many people as this crash. YSSYguy (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well I am sick and tired of WP:NOTNEWS being used as the SOLE argument for starting these AfDs and then invariably these AfDs failing and people like you refusing to get the message per WP:STICK . I think Mjroots is a respected admin who has an interest in Aviation related articles and he is working on something. meanwhile how many failed AfDs before you see the folly of your way of thinking. or is that too much to expect from somebody who has been blocked > 20 times ????--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm sick of your constant ABF, vague and incivil attacks, and other general whining, like this 20 blocks bullshit, as if it has anything to do with Afd in the slightest. But you don't hear me complaining about it do you? If you can't be bothered, or more likely, just aren't able, to write the guideline, then just keep this general rubbish to yourself, and leave the real work of solving this problem to others, who will take care of it for you. Oh, and by the way, Mjroot's draft doesn't even come close to what you've been saying in these Afd's about crash notabiity, and his draft is nowhere near what AIRCRASH actually says, and what AIRCRASH actually says is so weakly supported, it has been in a permanent draft state for ages. Stick indeed. More like a wet marshmellow frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are playing the man, not the ball. What has the number of times he has been blocked got to do with anything? Yes he is strident, yes he rubs people up the wrong way (he rubs me the wrong way even though we have never communicated and we are usually in agreement in the discussions we have both been involved in); that doesn't mean his arguments are unsound or that they can be dismissed. The "will of the community"? "The community" does not want "these articles" kept; some in the community appear to want to keep articles pertaining to every crash of an aircraft operated by an airline, something that is not supported by AIRCRASH (which is one reason why we keep having these debates, in which people say "keep per AIRCRASH", even though AIRCRASH specifically says, do not have an article if it meets only one criterion, or words to that effect). This is not such an article, and several articles about fatal crashes of light aircraft that have occurred, have been deleted this year. The only ones that have been kept after PROD or AfD discussion have been about crashes involving wikinotable people, and even then not all have survived as stand-alone articles; I am aware of one that has been merged and redirected, and there may be others for all I know. I find it interesting that you have invoked Mjroots' name; he is almost always on the other side of the debate from me in AfD discussions about large aircraft crashes, but has often supported deletion of light aircraft crash articles, and as an admin has sometimes carried out the deletions himself. Isn't there something somewhere about "widespread lasting, significant coverage"? The coverage has already ceased; it had ceased in Australia - which is the neighbour to New Zealand, where events in NZ are very often reported and which has citizens involved in this event - two days after the event. The argument for keep seems to be, "a number of people died in an aircraft crash, let's have an article". Where is X number of deaths a governing criterion? Why are aircraft crashes treated differently on WP to other modes of mass transportation? YSSYguy (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made my !vote before reading the above. In reply, I agree with YSSYguy that generally, GA crashes are non-notable, a higher threshold of notability being required due to the frequency of GA accidents. However, in this case, I believe that the accident just about creeps over the notability threshold for reasons I gave below. Air (and rail) crashes are treated differently to other modes of mass transportation due to their comparative rarity, especially in relation to road transport. By extension, ship accidents are also comparatively rare. Ship AfDs are generally unsuccessful due to it being generally accepted that ships are inherently notable enough to sustain stand-alone articles. See WP:SHIPS/AFD for the record of ship AfDs. Mjroots (talk) 07:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE: per YSSYguy, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Coverage has significantly declined. The prevalence of trolls such as Gabinho and others who constantly berate MickMacNee is concerning. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notabilty is not temporary. Why state NOTNEWS, when WP has a section on the frontpage titled "In the News". People are saying it will be forgotten about by the next day. Well it's the day after the day after tomorrow and I still remember it. Lugnuts (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tell me if you recall this in ten years. It's the simple question at the bottom of WP:RECENTISM. —Mikemoral♪♫ 22:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The presence of an "In the news" section invalidates the application of WP:NOTNEWS? NOTNEWS would have been deleted long ago if that were true. From WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. A search for news articles from the past 24 hours unveils nothing. The coverage for this crash qualifies as a "spike of news reports" "published during or immediately after". Because there are no more articles 4 days after the incident, "further analysis or discussion" is nonexistent. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • FWIW, it's a bigger crash than the one near Christchurch in 2003 which I can still tell you lots of details about without referring to any references. And I'm nothing to do with the air safety industry - details of that crash are fairly widely known even today. So I'd say the same will be true with this one in that many years' time. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The coverage of a General Aviation accident would not normally expected to be worldwide. Local reporting is normal for any GA crash. This one has been reported by notable agencies and press including the BBC (UK), the Wall Street Journal (USA) and Indian Express (India). As the worst aviation accident in New Zealand for over 20 years, and the 7th worst to date in NZ, notability is clearly established. Mjroots (talk) 07:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Television news here regularly shows footage of light aircraft performing wheels-up landings in the United States, in which nobody is even injured. Air show crashes overseas are also regularly reported. The Romanian Air Force An-2 crash earlier this year was reported by notable press here in Australia; the article about that crash was deleted. This is not "the 7th worst to date in NZ", it is one of three "7th worst" on New Zealand soil, at least one other of which had an article on WP - which was deleted. If, as Grutness seems to suggest, we look at New Zealand history and we include Erebus and other NZ-connected aircraft crashes outside New Zealand, then it is one of three "10th worst" that I am aware of, perhaps lower; and perhaps he remembers the "less-worse" (by one death) Christchurch crash because he lives a few hours' drive away in Dunedin - at the risk of being flippant I am reminded of a line in the Mel Brooks movie To Be Or Not To Be, "he's world-famous in Poland". Put it in a list, as MickMacNee and Avenue suggest; there are other such lists. YSSYguy (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware that the Erebus crash is the worst accident involving a New Zealand based airline, but it didn't happen in NZ. It is accurately stated as the 7th worst crash in NZ, not the 7th worst NZ-related crash, which are two different things. Mjroots (talk) 05:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erebus is on Ross Island, part of the Ross Dependency, which is claimed by New Zealand. Also, the proximity of Christchurch to Dunedin is not as relevant as that planes mostly don't crash here, so they do become very newsworthy. Limegreen (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point was, it's not the seventh-worst, it's one of three "seventh-worsts", and an article about one of the other two "seventh-worsts" has been deleted because it was deemed not notable enough to keep, with no lasting significant coverage - exactly the same situation as we have with the coverage of this crash. YSSYguy (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The one that was deleted, was it also the worst in NZ for over 20 years? Joint 7th worst in NZ + worst in over 20 years in NZ = just notable enough to sustain a stand-alone article IMHO. Mjroots (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was; it was the worst for 25 years, and you !voted for the article's deletion. YSSYguy (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at the deleted article (advantage of being an admin). The article did not assert that it was the worst in NZ for 25 years. The two references used for the article were this and this. The second one is a wikibase, and would probably fail WP:RS if it was to be challenged. Even the ASN Wikibase does not assert the accident's status as joint 7th worst in NZ. Therefore, going by what was asserted in the article, I stand by my !vote of "delete" as being valid, without prejudice to the recreation of the article with more information to establish the notability of the accident. Should a recreated and expanded article be brought before AfD, then I may !vote for its retention if notability could be demonstrated in the article through reliable sources. Mjroots (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 48 hours after the crash was far too early to determine that the crash was not notable. Yes, this possibly means that the article was created too soon, but deleting it now for later re-creation is pointless.

dramatic (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have the wrong end of the stick - 36 hours after the accident was far too early to decide this was going to be of enduring significance and to start an article. YSSYguy (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the "lot's of coverage"? The coverage has ceased. To compare this with the earthquake and suggest it's more significant because people died is ridiculous. Deaths does not equal notability. YSSYguy (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it hasn't ceased: [1] - plus the investigation has barely started, and is likely to take a year. Of note is the amount of comment in news reports of the coincidental timing of the crash (9 deaths) and the Canterbury earthquake (0 deaths).dramatic (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "lot's of coverage" are in the article. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey,not fair ! :-), I have been working on airports and going to airshows for over twenty years, and have seen a lot of prangs as a consequence. YSSYguy (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2010_New_Zealand_Fletcher_FU24_crash&oldid=1137516094"