This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Aviation/Notability page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 120 days

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Aviation This page is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

So here we are again, with the herd trampling to keep an article that I believe folks here would argue should be deleted. The key point is that this guideline is being used by both sides of the debate to justify their arguments, so apparently it's still not crystal clear enough for people to apply unambiguously. Socrates2008 (Talk) 20:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It never was crystal clear enough! The main issue I have with the guidelines is that tey attempted to "legislate' a standard for notrability. Also, the editor who pushed these guideliens through is no longer even active with the project, and wasn't active here before crafting the guidleines either! He didn't understand the issues involved, and the mess that is the guideliens reflects that. - I'm going to find the earlier version of the guide;liens, and sumbit those again for consideration and miodification. This one is next to useless for "predicting" real lasting notability in a simple way for borderline cases, which is most of the argument occurs, as in this case. - BilCat (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The old guideline is linked from this one. I agree this one has failed its beta-test. Let's extract what lessons we can from the test and move on with another version. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, exact notability guidelines like this, that try to unambiguously define what is notable using a long list of criteria, are a fundamentally bad idea and have a harmful effect on AfD discussions. They turn AfD discussions into ridiculous quarrels about whether or not some arbitrary subcriterion applies, loosing track of the only question that should be discussed: whether the topic is notable.

A good notability guideline should not just contain a list of arbitrary criteria, but instead explain why some fact indicates that a topic in more or less notable, so that these explanations don't have to be repeated again and again in individual AfD discussions. This guideline complete fails to provide useful arguments and explanations, but contains only unfounded assertions: Why is the first accident for a particular airline automatically notable? Why not the second one? Who made up that "rule", how is it justified? Unfounded assertions like these is exactly what should be avoided in AfD discussions, and the only thing this guideline does is to pollute AfD discussions with even more of them. I think we should get rid of it.--memset (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some good points, perhaps we should go back to basics and take something like WP:EVENT criteria:

• Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect.
• Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).
• Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.
• Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.

We should not try and change them but amplify them and give examples and explanations as they relate to accident and incidents on aircraft. So dont try and rewrite the established general guidelines but provide added value, this would help provide a better rationale at AfDs MilborneOne (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Memset, that's exactly why I believe the focus of the guidelines should be on "likley" notability, not defining notability in absolute terms. It's quite obvious that most incidents of mid-air turbulance will not be notable, while crashes that claim the lives of most or all occupants are obviously notable. It's those in-between cases where most of the arguments occur. The original guidelines were crafted by reviewing the AFD record, and that's probably where most of the assertions Memset has questioned came from. - BilCat (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Milb1 on his points, and they complement what I was trying to say above. - BilCat (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we accept that the three basic criteria for inclusion in a airport/airline/aircraft article are:

• It was fatal
• Hull loss or significant damage
• Change in procedures, regulations or process that had a wide effect

So using WP:EVENT criteria what lifts each of them into probably notable or very likely to be notable criteria ? or keeps them in the may or may not be notable or not notable categories. Perhaps we should deal with each one and any AfD history one at a time, I dont think it would take long to produce the sort of guideline that has been suggested. MilborneOne (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was fatal

• The probably notable says that they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline. The impression from AfDs is that the enduring historical significance is valid. This has generally meant that small aircraft accidents or fatal combat losses dont have an enduring historical significance unless a notable person in involved. Perhaps wrongly we have had a number of discussions on the type and level of fatalities that would meet the probably notable criteria. Perhaps we just need to summarise this and give examples from previous AfDs, keep it simple in the past the size of aircraft and more than x fatalities have been tried which is why we should just give some examples and explantion instead, thoughts so far? MilborneOne (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After a good nights sleep I think I will draft a simple guideline for discussion rather than look at bit by bit. If you can bare with me while I write it. If you dont like it or any bits of it we can then discuss it again. Might take a few hours when I am next available, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previous version

I think this is the last version before the current one was proposed. - BilCat (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An incident or accident is "notable" in Wikipedia terms if

• General criteria:
  • It involves unusual circumstances;
  • One or more of the passengers on board is notable; or
  • The aviation professionals are dismissed or severely reprimanded for their related actions.
• Air carrier criteria:
  • It is an accident which involves a scheduled or charter air carrier. An occurence that results in serious injury or loss of life is an accident by definition.
  • It is a non-injury incident which materially contributes to a change in industry or aircraft procedures.
  • It is the result of military or terrorist action, including hijacking, against a civilian target.
  • It is the first, deadliest, or most significant accident for a particular airline or aircraft.
• Military aircraft:
  • Accidents or incidents to military aircraft (as opposed to civilian aircraft) are not in the purview of this discussion.
  • Loss-of-life is not necessarily a valid criteria (due to the nature of military aviation, training crashes resulting in loss of life are not typically notable).
  • It is notable if there are unusual circumstances involved
  • It occurs in the civilian world and causes civilian casualties.
  • It is the first crash of a particular type of aircraft.
• General aviation/corporate aviation/private aircraft accidents are generally notable only if:
  • Unusual circumstances are involved;
  • Notable people are involved;
  • They result in downstream changes to the industry or procedures; or
  • News coverage continues beyond the immediate timeframe of the accident.

Some good comments from various people in there. One recurring theme that is not addressed yet is the are-you-blind-it's-on-the-front-page-of-every-newspaper argument. WP:NOTNEWS does not appear to deter those who are only able to read bold Times Roman print. However there is not a WP article for every one of the 5 topics covered on the front page my local newspaper this week (e.g. interest rates are not quite as notable at WP, apparently, despite getting the same coverage in the press as QF32). Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point socrates, I think we just need to emphasis that the guideline adds to the general guidelines and and make sure that NOTNEWS is mentioned. MilborneOne (talk) 10:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last item in the above list does allude to it, but making it explicit from the beginning is needed to. - BilCat (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guideline for aircraft accidents and incidents:

For an aviation accident or incident to be notable enough for an article it must meet a consensus for inclusion which is provided by a general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports. As these guidelines are of a general nature this guideline is to assist editors where the notability of the event is not clear.

Accidents

Any occurence that results in serious injury or loss of life is an accident by definition.

Most accidents are probably notable if they have an enduring historical significance or have lasting effects.

• It is likely that only accidents that involve commercial aircraft on international flights are probably notable but they must have an enduring historical significance or have lasting effects.^{[clarification needed]}

• Accidents that involve commercial aircraft on domestic flights or involving business or private aircraft are unlikely to be notable unless one or more of the victims were notable before the accident or involved unusual circumstances.

• Accidents to military aircraft are unlikely to be notable unless one or more of the victims were notable before the accident. Military aircraft accidents that involve fatal injury to civilians or involved unusual circumstances may be notable.

Incidents

Most incidents are probably notable if they have an enduring historical significance or have lasting effects.

• It is likely that only incidents that involve wide-spread changes to industry or their procedures are probably notable but they must have an enduring historical significance or have lasting effects.

• An incident where aviation professionals are dismissed or severely reprimanded for their related actions may be notable.

• An incident to a commercial aircraft which is the result of military or terrorist action, including hijacking may be notable.

Comments

I have tried to keep the guideline as simple as possible and have removed stuff which is mainly in the remit of other guidelines (like news coverage). Rather than a score card it would be up to those proposing or supporting the article to provide evidence that the general guidelines on notability and coverage are meet. Comment welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's what we need to have. (I tagged the first line for clarity, as I think some words got left in during a rewrite.) It's a better focus than the score card approach. We might consider a separate AIRCRASH sub-page that lists the general guidelines too, so that we have one place to send editors that has all the info needed. - BilCat (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it to its own page to help discussion and gain consensus Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Notability. MilborneOne (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current guideline WP:AIRCRASH on aircraft accidents and incidents does not appear to reflect the consensus of the community. The current guideline is being used equally by both sides in deletion discussions and the scoreboard type effect does not help these discussion. Following comments from other editors that the guideline is not really fit as it stands, I would like to propose that a new AIRCRASH guideline currently drafted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Notability be used as the guideline for aircraft accidents and incidents. Any comments for or against are welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Notability. MilborneOne (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question on WP:aircrash. After a year of beta-testing, I would guess it is time for evaluation. Was there term/procedure planned for such an evaluation (or will it be beta-tested forever ;-))? L.tak (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suspect it is unlikely to gain a consensus hence a new proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Notability. MilborneOne (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]