Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities

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. postdlf (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplicates much of this list and this [[1]] 50 is an arbitray total. List's infobox also violates WP:OR in its phase section. Northwest Airlines Flight 255 and Viasa Flight 742 crashed after hitting objects soon after takeoff but are said to have happened in different phases of flight. How was this determined?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC) ...William 17:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicate of List of accidents and incidents involving airliners by location, List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft & Category:Lists of aviation accidents and incidents. Has no real value. --JetBlast (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Article creator)

Regarding duplication: Based on the two comparisons you offer, the list proposed for deletion provides significant advances, new information, and sorting abilities not present in the comparisons. List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities provides the following unique contributions: Fatality rate, specific locations with appropriate links, phase of flight, departing or receiving airport links, distance from crash site (for early and late phases of flight).

All of this is organized in a comprehensive and highly sortable table (absent from the two comparisons offered) which further allows for differentiation of accidents/incidents versus attack on the aircraft (further broken out to sort by commercial versus military and types of attack perpetrated on the aircraft). List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities can be sorted by total deaths, crew deaths, passenger deaths, ground fatalities, fatality ratio, incident (airline), aircraft, location, phase of flight, relevant airport codes, distance from impact. None of these features exist in the comparison lists. There are 21 references between the two comparison lists versus 600 references covering each incident with a link to Aviation Safety Network database and in many cases to the original investigation reports.
Accidents/incidents involving commercial aircraft requires that all entries have a dedicated Wikipedia article. This provision alone will never allow the list to be considered comprehensive. Without checking specific cases side by side, there are 111 occurrences in List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities without dedicated articles, and therefore missing from accidents/incidents involving commercial aircraft. The list can search by year only.
accidents and disasters by death toll. For the specified scope and criteria, this list is missing 188 occurrences, and has no sorting ability.

There is no violation of Wikipedia:OR. All individual records of incidents are individually cited (which does not exist in either of the abovementioned lists). Figures appearing in tables are nothing more than routine calculations of the cited data. It is for this express reason that figures for standard deviation, correlation, and significance levels were not used. Most importantly, there are no inferences of causal relationships.

Regarding your concern about different phases of flight for Northwest Airlines Flight 255 and Viasa Flight 742 (TOF and ICL respectively), these phases of flight are recorded from the Aviation Safety Network database here and here.

I have no desire to put down or diminish the accomplishments of the comparison lists, that is not my style. However, this AfD has put me in a position where I must explain why I created a newer, expanded, more comprehensive, highly sortable and referenced list. Stylistically and given its scope and criteria, it is not a duplicate of any existing aviation list. --Godot13 (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - apart from arbitary cut-off point which has no satisfactory explanation, the phrase descriptive statistics, the extensive notes to explain the tables and the description of the methodology to derive the data all point to an attempt at a research paper - something WP is not. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd missed the statement in the article "Each accident or incident has been reviewed using Google Earth to find the location closest to the crash site" which steers close to OR.

How does this steer close? In some cases investigation reports provided specific coordinates for a crashsite. In others maps are provided with locations. How is entering this in Google Earth and determining the closest inhabited place OR?--Godot13 (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and also "fatality rate" applied to % of occupants killed comes across as an invented phrase.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then make suggestions to improve the article, not wholesale delete it. And try to fix the article rather than make it worse which you seem to have done with your most recent clumsy edits. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Fatality rate % is very simply #fatalities/#total manifest. This is not original research, simply a way to provide a number that can be compared across occurrences so the reader is not required to sit with calculator. This type of statistic is wholly permitted.--Godot13 (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have a number of lists with cut-off points, it helps manageability of the length of lists. The title of the list explains exactly what the list comprises. I've seen that MilbourneOne has a list of personal issues about this, to which I've responded here. Quite why the aviation project is set on "delete as default" I have no idea. We don't use categories for a coherent list of disasters. We stopped using "... by location" or whatever several years ago. In fact, defending a "... by location" list and then criticising a "... at least 50 fatalities" list is crazy. Each define the content, and the presentation. This list is intended to be useful to our readers, not the owners of the Aviation project. I have raised concerns with Godot13 that there are some elements that could be removed (as they seem unnecessarily synthetic) so I'm not just waving a banner for this list. But it shouldn't be deleted. Finally, per User:JetBlast's comment about duplication, hardly! The two lists to which JetBlast refers have a handful of references between them. Both lists are woefully inadequate and rely on linked articles for references etc, which is entirely unsatisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This nomination is kind of a joke to be honest as it is hard to assume good faith on the behalf of the nominator. When was the last time somebody asked/thought about when did a commercial aircraft crashed last (list of commercial aircraft crashes), or where do aircrafts crash (crashes by location), versus when was the last time somebody wondered what is the highest fatality crash? Just based on the scope, the location list should be deleted, since it is clear that it is encompassed by this list, while the commercial aircraft crashes should link here and discuss in addition notable crashes with less than 50 fatalities. This is a COMPLETE list from many perspectives. If you guys don't like having lists with over 50 fatalities, perhaps you should not have templates for each year emphasizing the 50 threshold. Nergaal (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per TRM, Nergaal, and WP:NLIST. Lists by location are outdated and should be merged into lists like this (we can easily make tables sortable now), except where they are divided into national categories to avoid getting the lists too long. Category:Lists of aviation accidents and incidents is not quite a duplicate, as it is a category and only includes those events with an article (the scope of this list would not prevent it from including incidents without articles). List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft does not overlap as this list's scope allows it to include military aircraft, whereas the other is limited to commercial aircraft; also, the other article does not necessarily have a clear scope: what determines notability in such a list? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful list. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- WP:ITSUSEFUL - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. No real policy-based reason for deletion is presented, the list seems notable and useful, and this appears to be standard procedure for modern lists. GraemeLeggett's delete statement appears to make little sense to me either. And JetBlast seems to forget that the presence of a category doesn't mean a list is redundant. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete.~~ First off, Nergaal, I don't think this article was nominated in bad faith. But more importantly, although I would hate to see so many users' hard work go to waste, it seems like the number 50 in this case was chosen arbitrarily. Yes, there are other list-based articles on here, but take a look at Category:Death-related lists; do you see any other quantitative article titles? I don't. There aren't even any such titles in Category:Lists by death toll. Another issue is the inclusion criteria section; who even determines that? And anyway, that kind of section is usually found within notability guideline pages, not on actual article pages. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 09:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean a death-related list like List of tornadoes causing 100 or more deaths? Inclusion criteria is stated in the article title. Seems pretty clear to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops, I missed that one. It's a keep then, but as far as the inclusion criteria section, it still doesn't state who determines why certain accidents are included and why certain accidents are excluded. The section isn't sourced, and there is no discussion about it on the talk page. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 15:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That section is surely very easy to state: any accident that involved 50 or more fatalities, inclusive of ground fatalities. And it shouldn't need sourcing, surely? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extremely well sourced list. I could use some more explication and less tables, but seems to be a sound article. Should also be an article titled List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 100 fatalities but that's for the future.--Auric talk 12:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Such a split would mean this gets moved to List of aircraft accidents and incidents (resulting in 50–99 fatalities). Although that's in the future. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing substantially wrong with this list; I agree that the cutoff is needed for size reasons. I've looked through it and seen nothing that appears problematic from WP:OR grounds; the biggest problem I've seen with this article is a WP:HEADER "violation", ==See Also==. Definitely onthing deserving deletion. Nyttend (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is too long, it is 400,000 bytes on Wikipedia. The size of the HTML source file (view page source) sent to my computer was 1.162 Megabytes. Unscintillating (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is a reason for splitting and not deletion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page is character/code-heavy due to 1) lot of use of <span> etc to permit sorting of the various columns and 2) the long names of the references. 3) some substantial notes to the table. Some terseness in these elements without losing content might be possible.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be possible, but splitting would mean we'd have a longer time before we had to fix the list again (keeping in mind that aircraft accidents and incidents do not become fewer as time passes). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep, poor faith by nominator. I abhor duplications, and this is not one, it is a substantial improvement, and the other article could be merged into this. 50 deaths may be arbitrary, but in no way is that against any rules. List of tallest buildings in the United States has an arbitrary cut-off at 700 feet tall, but there's no problem with that either. A question in the determination of a single data point sure as heck is not grounds for deletion. Reywas92^Talk 13:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:LISTN in WP:N states, "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." But as other parts of WP:LISTN say, notability is not clearly defined for these lists. In this case, I think the problem is that the arbitrary cutoff of 50 doesn't create an independently interesting list, and has in turn led to an unmanageable file. I suggest that the answer is that this should be a top 100 list. I'm not opposed to a longer list possibly using multiple pages...this is a matter for the editors doing the work to decide. Unscintillating (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Top 100 is no less arbitrary than 50+ fatalities. Why not Top 75? Top 50? Top 200? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia, we follow the sources, and I'm sure you are aware that there are top 100 lists of things in the world. "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." I did a Google search on [top 100 list of airplane fatalities] and the first item on the list was [2]. A list of 50 or 75 is not currently a consideration since we already have data for more. As I have stated previously, I'm not personally opposed to a list of 200 as you suggest...I think that this is a matter for the editors doing the work to decide. Unscintillating (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists. This list serves both informational and navigational purposes. While discussion of splitting the list is premature, if the table functions properly (i.e., sorts) why would we not want to have as much information as possible in a single list? Isn't that an Encyclopedic reference? The bottom section (1-50) will wind up being much longer than the existing list, and disproportionately longer than 50+ if split up. Also, a top 100 or top 200 list would mean that information we are publishing for viewers would be periodically removed as its ranking diminishes. If they are then to be added to a second list, does something get bumped from that list? It seems like it would only create more work each time something hit the "Top xxx" list.--Godot13 (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are in agreement on the technical points. What we disagree about is the cost benefit of deleting material to prevent the list from growing and to keep it interesting; and the beneficence of following the sources, or perhaps patterns used by the sources. And I take your point about the sorts, I missed that when I mentioned "multiple pages". But why does Wikipedia need so much information, isn't that what IINFO is about? How about a top 250? But I don't need an answer, one of the bottom lines in a volunteer organization is who is willing to do the work. Unscintillating (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Our nominator asserts a section of the article lapses from WP:OR. Our deletion policies explain that articles should not be nominated for deletion when someone has a concern over a section of that article. Rather, this concern should be raised on the article's talk page, and if others agree, that section should be fixed, or possibly excised. Our nominator has doubts about why some information is included? Again, this is a question for the talk page, it not grounds for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles the nomination asserts this article duplicates are inferior to this article. List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft has just four references. List of accidents and incidents involving airliners by location has just 11 notes and no references. This article has two dozen notes and over 600 references. 600 references -- that represents over one hundred hours of work. If the article was not policy compliant that would be irrelevant. But since no one has suggested any problems with policy compliance that couldn't be solved with simple editing that one hundred hours or more of work is relevant, and deserves a hats off and a job well done from the rest of us. Well done! And to the nominator? Could you please refrain from nominating any more articles for deletion? Geo Swan (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the nominator has long since left this nomination well alone. The Rambling Man (talk)
Keep This article is superior to the others. The dynamic chart is most helpful. Dream Focus 14:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC) And of course, it has ample references from reliable sources proving it obviously meets the general notability guidelines. That isn't really in question here, just where this article should exist when other similar ones do also. You don't delete a far superior article for the sake of a lesser one. Dream Focus 22:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSUSEFUL - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edit comment says, "please argue using policy!", but the post itself cites an essay. Looking at more of the essay, it says at WP:ATA#Just pointing at a policy or guideline, "Also, while citing essays that summarize a position can be useful shorthand, citing an essay (like this one) just by one of its many shortcuts (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill-advised, for the reasons explained above." Unscintillating (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A well-organised compilation of data. The cut-off point is arbitrary, but I'd say it is placed about right to keep the list within reasonable bounds. Any problems with WP:OR etc should be easy enough to sort out, I'd think. It could probably do with less jargon, but again that can be fixed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is actually framed in such a way as to keep the list under control p b p 23:19, 9 July 2013 (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.