The following is a draft working towards a proposal for adoption as a Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal must not be taken to represent consensus, but is still in development and under discussion, and has not yet reached the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as policy, guideline, nor yet even as a proposal.

There are many factors that determine the notability of aviation accidents and incidents, but as with other forms of transport the vast majority of incidents are not notable enough for a general purpose encyclopaedia. At the most basic level, the Wikipedia:General notability guideline sets the minimum standard required for inclusion and nothing in this guide should be read as contradicting that.

Neither notability nor inclusion is a binary. The most notable incidents 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 incident and/or a notable person involved in the incident. 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.

This page is intended to provide guidance on what factors generally make an incident more or less notable from an aviation perspective, it does not deal in absolutes. Incidents may also be notable for reasons not related to aviation, for example in the context of the incident location, the life of a notable person or group, disaster management, international relations or geopolitical events (e.g. armed conflicts). Guidance on such issues is outside the scope of this page. This means that the notability of any accident or incident 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.

The factors below are listed in alphabetical order and are not ranked by importance.

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

• Airline accidents and incidents are more likely to be notable than those in the other categories.
  • Within airline flying, accidents and incidents to scheduled flights carrying passengers are more likely to be notable than ferry or positioning flights for example.
• Military accidents and incidents 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 part of the conflict though.
• General aviation accidents and incidents are usually considered to be significantly less notable than occurrences in airline or military aviation - most incidents are, from an aviation perspective, of equivalent notability to most car crashes even though they may attract more local news coverage.
  • Almost all aviation accidents result in a report, so the simple existence of one is not a good indicator of notability.

• Incidents resulting from enemy action in combat zones are more likely to be notable as part of the conflict than as aviation incidents.
• Incidents that occur due to bad weather are generally less notable than some other causes
• Successful hijackings are often (but not always) notable, but see also below re series of events. Consideration should be given to coverage on an article about the hijacker's campaign/cause if a standalone article isn't warranted.
• A series of related accidents or incidents may be more notable than the individual occurrences and consideration should be given to coverage on a single article.

There is a loose correlation between the amount of damage done (to the aircraft and/or on the ground) and the notability of an incident, but on its own it is not a reliable indicator.

• Hull loss accidents/incidents, where an airframe is written off, are frequently considered more notable than incidents where this does not occur.
  • Hull loss accidents involving contemporarily modern passenger airliners are usually notable enough for a stand-alone article.
  • Hull-loss of a military or small general aviation aircraft is not usually sufficient for a standalone article on its own.
• Incidents that result in no damage to the aircraft will not normally be sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article in the absence of non-aviation factors.

• Incidents involving production aircraft are normally more notable than experimental aircraft.
• Incidents involving prototype aircraft that lead to design changes in the subsequent production aircraft are normally more notable than experimental aircraft.
• Incidents involving large (for the era) aircraft are often more notable than those involving smaller ones.
• The first significant and most significant incidents 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 incidents will not be mentioned in the articles about the aircraft (airline and general aviation) or operator (airline aviation) even if a standalone article is not justified. Military aviation is more variable in this regard.
  • Generally, the larger the number of aircraft produced of an aircraft type the more weight is attached to these considerations.
  • This factor is stronger for airline than general aviation aircraft.
• Accidents and incidents involving aircraft and operators with good safety records are slightly more likely to be notable than those with poor safety records.

The date of the incident should be taken to judge accidents and incidents by contemporary standards, for example what is meant by terms such as "airliner", or even a "large" aircraft, has significantly changed through time.

• The amount of coverage received and the availability of sources needs to take into account the era when determining notability - a trivial incident in 2014 may receive more media coverage than a much more serious accident in the 1930s for example, when they were daily occurrences.
• Reports are produced for almost all air accidents and incidents, but these may take 1-2 years and sometimes longer before completion and interim reports are released only exceptionally by most investigating authorities.
• It is usually not possible to correctly determine the long term significance of moderate incidents until at least 1-2 years after the event.

• 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.
  • 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 beyond a list entry at most.

• Accidents and incidents that occur on the ground are usually less notable than those that occur in the air.
• There is a reasonable correlation between the number of aircraft involved and notability.
  • This is less true of military aviation that involves formation flying.
• 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, tyre bursts, hard landings, and similar events are notable only in exceptional cases absent other factors.
• Generally the more frequently a type of incident occurs the less notable it is likely to be.

• It is usually not possible to accurately judge the long-term significance of moderate incidents 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 incidents until the initial news cycle has ended. Depending on many factors this may take between 1-2 days or up to 3-4 weeks.
• 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. For these reasons neither the simple existence nor absence of a report is a good indicator of notability or long term impact.
• Accidents and incidents 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.
  • Where these result from a series of similar events, consideration should be given to combining coverage of some or all of them into one article or section.

The location of an accident or incident can have a big impact on its notability:

• Incidents that significantly disrupt major airports are often considered more notable than those which affect only minor ones.
• Incidents 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 Denver.
• The first and most significant occurrences of an incident at a given location are sometimes considered more notable than comparable events elsewhere - particularly with civil aviation incidents at major airports.
  • It is common for the most significant civil or general aviation incident at an airport to be mentioned on the article about that airport, even if nowhere else.

• An incident that involves a notable person or group is often regarded as more notable than a comparable incident that does not. This does not mean that an incident involving a notable person is automatically notable enough for a standalone article. 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.
  • Generally, if an incident 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 incident causes the death of a notable person or group it is best to write about the incident 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.