This essay includes content from Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents/Factors.

This essay includes generally accepted criteria for when to add mention of aircraft accidents to articles about airports, airlines and aircraft types. It also provides guidance on whether or not a new stand-alone article should be created for an aircraft accident or incident. The word "accident" is used throughout this essay to refer to both accidents and incidents throughout the essay.

Because this is an essay and has not yet been adopted by consensus as a policy by the Aviation WikiProject, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting.

The following guidelines outline generally accepted criteria for when to add mention of aircraft accidents to articles about airports, airlines and aircraft types.

When including a mention of an accident that is notable enough to have its own article, be sure to add a wikilink to the main article (e.g., British Airways Flight 38). Do not duplicate significant information from the accident's stand-alone article into the airport, airline, or aircraft type article; a reader who desires to learn more about a specific accident can click through to the accident's stand-alone article.

If an accident is not notable enough to have its own article, please be sure to add a citation to a reliable source when adding the accident. To avoid giving undue weight to a single accident or incident, it is recommended that each mention of an accident on an airport, airline, or aircraft type page is limited to a single sentence or paragraph in a section listing notable aircraft incidents and accidents, unless clear justification exists for a more detailed description (such as the accident's effects on the continued sale or operation of an aircraft type, or substantially noteworthy consequences for the involved airline).

There are three categories of aviation: military aviation, airlines and general aviation.

• Airline accidents are more likely to be notable than those in the other categories.
  • Airline accidents and their consequences (e.g., the grounding of an aircraft type) are more likely to have substantial impact on the general public.
  • Within airline flying, accidents and incidents to scheduled flights carrying passengers are more likely to be notable than ferry or positioning flights.
• Military accidents can be subdivided into those occurring in a combat area, training incidents, and others.
  • Training incidents are rarely considered notable from an aviation perspective.
  • Incidents occurring in combat areas, particularly if not due to enemy action, are generally presumed less notable than airline accidents. Such incidents may be a notable enough to mention on the conflict's article, even if it is not notable for inclusion in an aviation article.
• General aviation accidents are usually considered to be significantly less notable than occurrences in civil or military aviation.
  • Most general aviation accidents are, from an aviation perspective, of equivalent notability to most car crashes, even though they may attract more local news coverage.
  • Almost all general aviation accidents result in a report, so the simple existence of a report is not a good indicator of notability.

Accidents at an airport should only be included in airport articles if one or more of the following is true:

• The accident caused human fatalities; or
• The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport; or
• The accident or incident invoked a change in procedures, regulations or process that had a wide effect on other airports or airlines or the aircraft industry.

Accidents should only be included in airline articles if one or more of the following is true:

• The accident was fatal to humans; or
• The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport; or
• The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry.

For airline and large civil aircraft, the page may include a listing of notable aircraft incidents and accidents, where appropriate. Accidents or incidents should only be included in aircraft articles if one or more of the following is true:

• The accident was fatal to humans; or
• The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport; or
• The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry.

Accidents involving light aircraft and military aircraft are mostly non-notable. They account for many more accidents and incidents than larger civil aircraft. Military aircraft accidents may be suitable for inclusion in the relevant list of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft. For accidents involving light aircraft (maximum gross weight of 12,500 lb (5,670 kg) or less) or any military aircraft, the standard for inclusion is:

• The accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim); or
• The accident is notable for reasons not related to aviation, for example in the context of the incident location, significant loss of civilian property or non-occupant lives, disaster management, international relations, or geopolitical events (e.g. terrorism, armed conflicts); or
• The accident resulted in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, including changes to national or company procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directive (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft).

If an accident satisfies the general Wikipedia guidelines for notability and meets the above criteria, it may also be suitable for a stand-alone article. However, there are many factors that determine the notability of aviation accidents, but as with other forms of transportation, the vast majority of accidents are not notable enough for a general purpose encyclopaedia. This section is intended to provide guidance on what factors generally make an accident more or less notable from an aviation perspective, it does not deal in absolutes. This means that the notability of any accident involving an aircraft needs to be determined based on the individual circumstances, and recommending a particular outcome based only on this page is not appropriate.

Consider whether the subject matter belongs as a section in another existing article, rather than in a stand-alone article. For example, an accident involving a military aircraft may be appropriate for inclusion on the aircraft type page if it involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia. Consider whether it is more appropriate to add information on the accident in a new section on the individual's biography page, rather than in a new stand-alone article.

Neither notability nor inclusion is a binary. The most notable accidents are covered across several articles, for example 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash, while those near the other end of the scale merit only an entry in a list, for example the 2009 and 2010 incidents at Kam Air#Incidents and accidents. Between the two there exists the possibility for single articles, article sections, paragraphs and sentences on related articles, for example about the aircraft type, aircraft operator, location of the accident and/or a notable person involved in the accident. One or more redirects from plausible search terms are appropriate in almost all cases where coverage is on a related article, and are recommended where coverage is a couple of sentences or longer.

As a reminder to all Wikipedia editors, any stand-alone article on Wikipedia should meet the following guidelines. The below summary reflects the state of the Wikipedia guidelines mentioned As of May 2016^[update]. These summaries are not intended as a substitute for reading the full guidelines (which all Wikipedia articles should familiarize themselves with), but as a starting point for discussion of notability of articles which may fall under the scope of the Aviation Wikiproject.

• Wikipedia general notability guideline:
  • A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
• Notability of events guideline:
  • 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 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.
  • Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable.
  • 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 enduring significance.
  • In evaluating an event, editors should evaluate various aspects of the event and the coverage: the impact, depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity and reliability of the coverage, as well whether the coverage is routine.
• Wikipedia is not a newspaper:
  • Wikipedia does not report on everything going on in the world today. There is usually no need to write articles about things with no historical significance whatsoever. An editor should consider whether their interest in creating an article is due solely to whether the event happened recently, rather than whether it has historical significance. For more on this, see Wikipedia:Recentism.
  • When editing Wikipedia to reflect current news, always ask yourself if you are adding something truly encyclopedic and important, or mere trivia. If it is the latter, there may be no need to write about it.
  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be verifiable and written from a neutral point of view.

The factors outlined below are intended to be viewed as extensions of the above; in other words, to aide in deciding whether an aircraft accident is generally notable. An accident that does not satisfy the above notability guidelines is not suitable for a stand-alone article, even if it appears to satisfy one or more of the guidelines described below.

The below factors are presented in alphabetical order and not in order of significance.

Generally, the more frequently a type of accident occurs, the less notable it is likely to be.

• Accidents resulting from enemy action in combat zones are more likely to be notable as part of the conflict than as aviation incidents.
• Accidents that occur due to bad weather are less likely to be notable, although an accident with significant historical impact (changes to operating procedures, discovery of new weather phenomena, substantial loss of life) may be notable for those reasons.
• Successful hijackings are often (but not always) notable, but see also below regarding series of events. Consideration should be given to adding the incident to an article about the hijacker's campaign/cause, if a standalone article isn't warranted.
• A series of related accidents may be more notable than the individual occurrences, and consideration should be given to consolidated coverage on a single article.

There is a reasonable correlation between the number of aircraft involved in the accident and its notability.

• Midair collisions which result in significant loss of life are rare, and often result in extensive investigations or changes to procedures, and are thus more likely to be notable.
• This is less true of military aviation that involves formation flying. An aviation incident may not be sufficiently notable to merit a standalone article, even if it includes multiple military aircraft.

Accidents that occur on the ground are usually less notable than those that occur in the air.

• Minor contact with a stopped or taxiing aircraft, even if the contact is between multiple aircraft, is rarely notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article.
• Runway overruns that do not lead to a significant damage or serious injuries are rarely notable for a stand-alone article.
• Aborted take-offs and landings, go-arounds, fly pasts, tire bursts, hard landings, and similar events are notable only in exceptional cases, absent other factors.

As noted above, Wikipedia is not news, and only subjects with lasting historical significance are sufficiently notable to warrant stand-alone articles.

• It is usually not possible to accurately judge the long-term significance of moderate accidents until at least 1-2 years after the event.
• It is almost never possible to determine the long-term significance of all but the most and least notable accidents until the initial news cycle has ended. Depending on many factors this may take between 1-2 days or up to 3-4 weeks.

It is inappropriate to infer that an accident is not notable because a report has not yet been published.

• Almost all aviation accidents result in a report, but it may take 1-2 years and sometimes longer before completion.
• Interim reports are released only exceptionally by most investigating authorities.
• Until a report is published, notability should be determined based on the known facts of the accident.

The amount of effort undertaken by investigators may provide clues to the likely historical significance of the accident.

• In the United States, the National Transportation Safety Board investigates hundreds of aviation accidents each year, including those that do not result in loss of life or substantial property damage, and publishes a finding of probable cause in each case. Thus, the existence of an NTSB investigation into an accident does not make the accident notable.
• However, the NTSB publishes only a few fully detailed Aviation Accident Reports per year, which contain substantial recommendations for changes to operations or procedures.
  • These reports are published as "AAR-YY-NN" with "YY" being the year it is published and "NN" being the sequential publication number (e.g., "AAR/82-08" is the eighth Aviation Accident Report published in 1982).
  • An Aviation Accident Report is published only after a substantial investigation into a significant accident, and may not be released until months or years after the accident occurred.
  • If the NTSB publishes an Aviation Accident Report containing detailed recommendations, it is likely that the accident is notable, but this does not guarantee notability.
  • Aviation authorities in other countries frequently follow the same model, publishing detailed reports and substantial recommendations only in response to notable accidents.

Accidents that result in changes to operations, procedures and/or the issuing of an Airworthiness Directive or similar are normally more notable than those that don't.

• As mentioned above, NTSB Aircraft Accident Reports (or equivalent reports by other countries' investigative agencies) frequently contain substantial recommendations for changes to operations and procedures, and thus may be evidence of historical notability.
• Where these changes result from a series of similar events, consideration should be given to combining coverage of some or all of them into a single article.

The date of the accident should be taken into consideration when judging accidents and accident by contemporary standards.

• Consideration of amount of coverage received and the availability of sources needs to take into account the era when determining notability; a trivial accident in 2014 may receive more media coverage than a much more serious accident in the 1930s, for example.
• The date a source was published should be considered when interpreting terms such as "airliner", or even a "large" aircraft; the meaning of terms may have significantly changed over time. An aircraft may have been considered a "large" aircraft at the time of the accident, but may not be described as such in more recent publications.

The location of an accident can have a significant impact on its notability.

• Accidents that significantly disrupt major airports are often considered more notable than those which affect only minor ones.
• Accidents in or near populated places may be perceived as more notable than those that occur far away from them.
  • There is a loose correlation between the size of the populated place and the notability of incidents occurring there, but this is heavily dependent on other factors, not all of which are related to aviation.
  • The frequency of an event may be considered relative to a region rather than globally. For example, an event that is common in North America but rare in Australia may be considered more notable if it occurs in Darwin than in Denver.

The first and most significant occurrences of an incident at a given location are sometimes considered more notable than comparable events elsewhere.

• This is particularly true with civil aviation incidents at major airports. It is common for the most significant civil or general aviation accident at an airport to be mentioned on the article about that airport, even if nowhere else.
• However, being the most significant accident at an airport does not necessarily make an accident noteworthy enough to warrant a stand-alone article. A description of the accident within the airport's article may be sufficient.

The aircraft type and operator may provide some indicators of notability, although they are not dispositive.

• Accidents involving production aircraft are typically more notable than experimental aircraft.
• Accidents involving prototype aircraft that lead to design changes in the subsequent production aircraft are typically more notable than experimental aircraft.
• Accidents involving large (for the era) aircraft are often more notable than those involving smaller ones.
• Accidents involving widely used aircraft types such as the Boeing 737 may be more notable than accidents involving aircraft with low production numbers.
• Accidents involving aircraft and operators with strong safety records are slightly more likely to be notable than those with poor safety records.

The first significant and most significant accidents involving a given operator or type of aircraft are sometimes considered more notable than comparable incidents on other aircraft types.

• It is rare that the most significant accidents will not be mentioned in the articles about the type of aircraft (airline and general aviation) or operator (airline aviation) even if a stand-alone article is not justified. Military aviation is more variable in this regard.
• However, being the most significant accident experienced by a type of aircraft or an operator does not necessarily make an accident noteworthy enough to warrant a stand-alone article. A description of the accident within the operator or airport type article may be sufficient.
• This factor is stronger for airline than general aviation aircraft. Because general aviation aircraft accidents are not typically notable, the first accident of a type of general aviation aircraft is not likely to be notable, either.

Accidents and incidents that result in large numbers of fatalities are frequently notable, but there is no standard definition of "large" and more deaths does not automatically mean more notable.

• An accident or incident which involves at least 50 fatalities is likely to be notable, but this does not a magic number. An accident with more than 50 fatalities may still not be notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article, while a number of accidents with fewer than 50 fatalities still meet the notability guidelines.
• A significant number of serious injuries or fatalities on the ground can also indicate notability, particularly if these occur away from an airport/airfield.
• Injury or fatality to ground crew does not significantly affect the notability of an incident in most cases.
• Accidents and incidents that result in no injuries do not always indicate non-notability, but in the absence of other significant factors they are rarely notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article.

An accident that involves a notable person or group is often regarded as more notable than a comparable incident that does not. In this context "notable person" means one who has a biography article on Wikipedia and that biography is not solely due to being killed or injured in an aircraft accident.

• This does not mean that an accident involving a notable person is automatically notable enough for a standalone article.
• Generally, if an accident is too trivial to mention in an article about the notable person or group, then their presence adds very little to no extra notability to the event.
• In many cases, where an otherwise non-notable accident causes the death of a notable person or group, it is best to write about the accident and death as a single topic, either as a section on the person or group's article or as a stand alone "Death of X" article.
  • For example, an accident involving a single light aircraft and four occupant fatalities is generally non-notable, absent special circumstances.
  • Thus, The Day the Music Died is notable due to the deaths of multiple notable individuals aboard, rather than the accident occurrence itself.

• WP:GNG – the general notability guideline
• WP:EVENT – guideline on the notability of events
• WP:NOTNEWSPAPER – a guide on the use of news reports
• WP:SPECULATION – Wikipedia is not a crystal ball