Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000 Australia Beechcraft King Air crash

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. JohnCD (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Australia Beechcraft King Air crash[edit]

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

Small plane crash that doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH guidelines for such. William 15:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -William 15:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 15:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)William 12:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 15:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.. All of the references are from one source. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 16:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

i) the guidelines state that if rules are changed, then it is notable and the 2000 Australia Beechcraft King Air crash#Aftermath section lists a few changes. The last line of the intro says "A number of safety recommendations were made following the accident."

ii) The WP:AIRCRASH guidelines differentiate notability based on a distinction between light and heavy aircraft and they define this as "maximum gross weight under 12,500 lb (5,670 kg))". The Beechcraft Super King Air article indicates that the "Max. takeoff weight: 12,500 lb (5,670 kg)" and some variations have higher MTOW, so you could argue that it isn't a light aircraft, and the 7 fatalities automatically make it notable. Eitherway, it is borderline, and the WP:AIRCRASH guidelines should better define and link to exactly what they mean by "maximum gross weight"

iii) Yutsi, there are already references from multiple sources, and plenty more would exist in offline sources, but Australian newspapers are not very well archived online from that time (there is a blackhole in Australian googlenews coverage from about 1980-90 to about 2000-5). The-Pope (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While this accident meets WP:AIRCRASH guidelines, it does so with regards to inclusion in airport, airline, or aircraft articles. AIRCRASH clearly states that for a stand-alone article, the WP:GNG must clearly be met - and even allowing for the "gNews black hole" that The-Pope alludes to, I don't see coverage meeting WP:PERSISTENCE/WP:NOTNEWSPAPER - just the usual coverage of a plane crash and the closing of its investigation. This accident should be mentioned in the King Air's article, but I don't believe it rises to the notability level required for its own article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does the fact that an aural warning was added to the aircraft, and that a specific check list introduced for cases when a controller suspects a case of pilot hypoxia satisfy the "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 Directives (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft)." criteria? And therefore is this an issue of, at the moment, not meeting WP:GNG, not of failing WP:AIRCRASH? Ravendrop 20:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer The maximum weight of this aircraft was not under 12,500 lb so it was not a light aircraft. The criterion in WP:AIRCRASH for inclusion of a large-aircraft crash in an aircraft article is: changes to regulations OR hull loss OR fatal to humans. This crash meets the criteria for inclusion in an aircraft article so the only remaining issue is whether it meets WP:GNG. Dolphin (t) 07:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case this should be a speedy keep as we now have multiple major newspaper reports from the time of the crash, from the coroners inquest, from a similar crash later on as well as the details from the investigation, so we definitely have significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting WP:AIRCRASH does not qualify an event for its own article, as AIRCRASH itself states. It also has to meet the GNG, and I do not see sufficent WP:PERSISTENCE to merit that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG and well-referenced by articles from 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2011, sidestepping WP:NOTNEWS. Haus^Talk 01:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anything from 2011? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look again? Haus^Talk 01:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference No. 5 is a newspaper article dated 15 June 2011. Dolphin (t) 10:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, I see it now, thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - WP:AIRCRASH#Aircraft articles states that a light aircraft is one whose maximum gross weight is under 12,500 lb (5,670 kg). The maximum gross weight of Sierra Kilo Charlie was not under 12,500 lb so it was not a light aircraft. The maximum weight of Super King Airs is 12,500 lb for the model 200 up to 15,000 lb for the model 350.

This accident has become highly notable because of the issue of aural warning of low cabin pressure. At the time of the accident there was already a high level of interest in the concept that the Beechcraft Super King Air was such a high-flying aircraft that it should be equipped with aural warning of low cabin pressure in addition to the existing visual warning. In the aftermath of the Ghost Flight there was a surge of public pressure for aural warning to be made mandatory. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority published a Discussion Paper in 2001, followed by a Notice of Proposed Rule Making in 2002, both canvassing views on whether operators of pressurised aircraft should be compelled to install aural warning. In Australia, this was the first time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making was issued solely in response to an aircraft accident.

Sections of the mining industry and many members of the Australian public were in favour of mandatory installation of aural warning of low cabin pressure in pressurised aircraft, but the majority of aircraft operators were opposed. In a highly controversial decision, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority decided against mandating aural warning. Over a decade later, it remains a controversial decision. There can be no doubt that this accident meets WP:GNG. Dolphin (t) 02:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep: Per rationale from The-Pope and Dolphin51. --LauraHale (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on balance, this accident does meet AIRCRASH. Doplhin51 makes a strong arugument and recent (2011) coverage indicates persistence. Mjroots (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the excellent rationale of Dolphin51, and per the article meeting both the GNG and AIRCRASH. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:23, 14 February 2012 (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.