Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Notability Information & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Notability Links at HealthHaven.com

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. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming
Archives: 1, 2

WikiProject Aviation

(Rated Project-Class)

Aviation portal

This article 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.

Project

This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

[edit] challenge to the guideline

As I see it, we have firm reasons why all fatal accidents in scheduled aviation are notable: they all get necessary coverage to meet the GNG, and the coverage continues past the actual date of the accident. . The extremely elaborate criteria on the page here strike me as nonsense: for example, if there are two accidents to a type, one killing 50 people and one killing 49, only the first would be notable.

have any articles been actually deleted under these criteria. I do not think there would be the least agreement on this. The articles that do get deleted are the ones with non-fatal results. The borderline is accidents with one or two fatalities in general or military aviation. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I understood that all fatal accidents to commercial aircraft are notable, can you tell us exactly which bit of the guideline is causing you trouble? MilborneOne (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The entire Section 2.2.4, which seems to say otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines on this page were arrived at by consensual discussion (see further up this page) which was sparked by agreement that the previous aircrash guidelines were not strict enough. These guidelines are based around the idea that fatal accidents to airlines are not necessarily notable enough for a standalone article, but that for most incidents coverage should be as part of a larger article.

It is not correct to say that "if there are two accidents to a type, one killing 50 people and one killing 49, only the first would be notable" as notability per the agreed guidelines depends on more than just the number of people killed. For example if the first accident was the result of shoddy maintenance by an airline known for shoddy maintenance and the second was caused by a terrorist bomb theb the latter would likely get a standalone article while the first would be covered on an article about the airline or the series of incidents. If the two incidents happened within a short timespan and of teh same cause then they would likely be covered together in one article.

If you agree or disagree with any part of the guidelines, please make some specific comments that can be discussed. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

PS regarding articles that have deleted, I don't follow all deletion discussions regarding air accidents/incidents, but I can't remember off the top of my head any fatal accidents being brought to AfD since the guideline was changed. Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Deliberate crash of an airliner

Would the deliberate crash of an airliner for research purposes be sufficiently notable. It's a bit WP:CRYSTAL at the moment, but Channel 4 in the UK are involed in such a project. Mjroots (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it probably should be mentioned on Wikipedia, but whether that should be separate from the context of the TV program or whatever I don't know. Certainly I don't think it should stand alone before the event has happened.Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say an article about the TV programme is probably the way to go. Allegedly the crash is scheduled for 10 December, using a L1011 Tristar. Mjroots (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not the first time this has been done and might be more appropriate in an article about accident investigation rather than a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It might also fit well with discussion of the airliner that was deliberately blown up to test if some sort of strengthening would work (kevlar lining or something was it?). Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the Anti-misting Kerosene experiment? Mjroots (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. I remember seeing footage of an airliner being blown up. They had done something to one half and not the other, and the results were very spectacular with the treated half being basically intact and the other half pretty much the opposite. I can't remember any more details than that, annoyingly Thryduulf (talk)

That would be reinforced cargo containers, test done at Bruntingthorpe if I remember correctly. Mjroots (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

Would anyone object to setting up a bot to auto-archive threads on this discussion page after say 60 days? Thryduulf (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)