Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Hukou F-5F crash
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus. After reading through the discussion, I can find no agreement as to whether to crash meets WP:AIRCRASH. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2007 Hukou F-5F crash[edit]
- 2007 Hukou F-5F crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Appears to be a non-notable military accident, no civil casualties, nothing to show it is any more than just another military training exercise accident which is not unusual. Was probably news is 2007 but their appears to be no further reports or recommendations MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Crash is notable for its relation to Taiwan and Singapore, for the pilot's sacrifice to evade civilian casualties, and for the breaking of Lee Jye's promise of safe training exercises. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although the article does not include them, two articles from May, 2008, were published on the crash over a year after the event occurred: [1] [2]. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete newsworthy but not wikipedia worthy, no evidence of any historical importance. --neon white talk 00:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Newsworthy but not notable summed it up nicely. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:AIRCRAFT, I'm afraid Computerjoe's talk 16:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To the above three that say newsworthy but not notable, please explain. WP:AIRCRAFT has a number of criteria, which one does this article fail and why does it fail that criteria? Although this may not be the most important air crash of the century, I believe it is a useful addition to Wikipedia. The event constitutes a failure on the promise of the Ministry of National Defense to have safe military training exercises, and pushed legislator Hsueh Ling to ask the heads of the MND to step down along with requesting that a budget be passed to replace materiels. Relevant bits could be merged into a number of other articles, but I think even with the addition of summaries to other articles the event deserves its own. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge relevant details into F5F, then delete. Mjroots (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Look at the mass of references at the bottom of the article. Yes, the crash may no longer be newsworthy in 2009, but please read Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary. There is no "historical importance" requirement on Wikipedia, the only requirement is "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", which this article has in abundance. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This might be marginally notable, but principally for the assertion in the Aftermath section that it incited a decision "to speed up an overhaul of warplanes". Unfortunately, this addresses a hole in WP:AIRCRASH. Except for military aircraft, WP:AIRCRASH allows for notability if the accident or incident "materially contributes to a change in industry or aircraft procedures". While the extant guidance generally excludes military casualties as conferring notability (correctly so, in my opinion), it does have a vague statement to the effect that "It is notable if there are unusual circumstances involved". One could fairly assume that a significant subsequent order – such as standing down the fleet pending inspection or an acceleration of overhaul or replacement – could make an incident notable. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So why does this not achieve notability under plain old WP:Notability? The crash apparently got plenty of coverage, which is good enough for most other articles. Why do air crashes have to meet a higher standard?--Aervanath (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not said it doesn't qualify under WP:N; however, WP:N doesn't exist in isolation, which produces gray areas. WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, while WP:N is a guideline and so is superior to it. However, WP:NOT is a policy and one of its elements is that WP is Not News – and these types of articles tend to be borderline cases in that, while occasionally generously sourced, they tend to have no notable enduring impact that separates them from material that better fits Wikinews. (This is perhaps best expressed by the summary of Wikipedia:News articles: "Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact.") WP:AIRCRASH is an attempt by members of WikiProject Aviation to clarify when an article of this type fits the standard of being "notable" news rather than "just" news. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would first like to point out that Wikipedia:News articles is an essay, not a guideline, and I thoroughly disagree with it, as it takes the reasoning behind WP:NOTNEWS too far. WP:NOTNEWS is intended to keep Wikipedia from becoming filled with "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism." An airline crash is none of those.--Aervanath (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is an essay; I referred to it in a supplementary way as it better expresses what those working on the policy were trying to capture in the limited space allowable in WP:NOT. And, yes, a news report of an aircraft crash is an announcement in many, if not most crashes; there has to more to it for notability (e.g., the death of Buddy Holly as opposed to a non-notable individual). Since military flying is inherently much more dangerous, so even when there are deaths involved, that does not make it notable ipso facto. Please note that I have not !voted on this AfD; I have pointed out the one thing I see that would make it notable according to my understanding of WP guidelines and such. If an actual change in policy – the acceleration of the overhaul for the aircraft – occurs, then this accident has, IMHO, had a notable outcome. If that has happened (and I mean something more than a promise or direction to do so), then there seems to me grounds to keep; so far, I haven’t seen that it has. If it hasn’t, it may prove best to userfy this article until it does. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would first like to point out that Wikipedia:News articles is an essay, not a guideline, and I thoroughly disagree with it, as it takes the reasoning behind WP:NOTNEWS too far. WP:NOTNEWS is intended to keep Wikipedia from becoming filled with "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism." An airline crash is none of those.--Aervanath (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)Probably because since WP:AVIATION randomly took over WP:AIRCRASH from a dedicated task force it has been pi***d about with to beyond recognition. That said, it sounds like the overhaul was scheduled and already underway, so unless there was amajor change I still wouldn't bite under WP:N. We need more information, but it sounds like a keep assuming that comes along, even if I did suggest AfD initially. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The original source (Taiwan premier orders warplane overhaul following another crash) "We need to more actively push for the overhaul of warplanes, gears and equipment," Su said, without giving details. appears to be a reaction to more than one crash and not the F-5 in particular. No indication that the F-5 was grounded or any follow action is mentioned. Has anybody another source? MilborneOne (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not said it doesn't qualify under WP:N; however, WP:N doesn't exist in isolation, which produces gray areas. WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, while WP:N is a guideline and so is superior to it. However, WP:NOT is a policy and one of its elements is that WP is Not News – and these types of articles tend to be borderline cases in that, while occasionally generously sourced, they tend to have no notable enduring impact that separates them from material that better fits Wikinews. (This is perhaps best expressed by the summary of Wikipedia:News articles: "Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact.") WP:AIRCRASH is an attempt by members of WikiProject Aviation to clarify when an article of this type fits the standard of being "notable" news rather than "just" news. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So why does this not achieve notability under plain old WP:Notability? The crash apparently got plenty of coverage, which is good enough for most other articles. Why do air crashes have to meet a higher standard?--Aervanath (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.chinapost.com.tw/news/archives/taiwan/2007513/109489.htm --Odie5533 (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree with the position taken below that this is fairly meaningless political drivel spouted in the immediate aftermath. Nothing concrete. Delete. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS. The claims otherwise are giving credibility to the political posturing on the sidelines with no references to suggest that these calls for resignations or reform resulted in resignations or reforms. The majority of references are within 5 days of the event with one reference some two weeks after the event. --Born2flie (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is probably because those are the most useful references for the article. See Odie5533's comment above, where he gives 2 articles about the event which were published a year afterwards. Also, since when is notability temporary?--Aervanath (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean the two links to the same article by the same author, for the same newspaper, which provide no additional information on the crash or actions taken that would define it as notable by WP:AIRCRASH? Notability isn't temporary, which is why the essay, WP:AIRCRASH, attempts to define notability for Aviation crashes in order to prevent WP:NOTNEWS from being violated by articles about each and every crash. You don't see every traffic accident written up for Wikipedia the same way you see it done for Aviation. My vote still stands; delete. --Born2flie (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The shorter article is possibly a lead in, or summary, or created for shorter publications. Either way, the event is still being discussed more than a year after its occurrence. And this is only the English sources. That the event was even discussed in English, and picked up by The Boston Globe, would seem to me to contribute to its notability. My interpretation of the guidelines and essay is that they are intended to discourage the inclusion of purely news report content, such as a small aircraft crashing in Alaska and no one being killed or injured, yet the event still making local newspapers. This isn't just some traffic accident. This was a military plane crash that crossed borders, resulted in deaths on both sides, appears to have contributed to budgetary changes, caused a legislator to request other officials to step down, and was reported in multiple languages in national and international news sources. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you should recheck your facts. The airplane was Taiwanese and crashed in Taiwan, in a Taiwan military maneuver area; it didn't cross borders. The Singapore troops were visiting to conduct training of their own, or perhaps to participate in a joint exercise between the two countries. "...appears to have..." is the problem, there are no references defining any significant change to the operating budget, a revision of procedures, resignation of officials, etc.. There were no resignations as a result of the call for resignations...a non-event. There is even an absence of reporting on any repercussions; political or military. President Obama is traveling abroad right now and there is a lot of reporting happening about the trip. Presidents make trips overseas, but what would serve to make this one notable; that they are reporting about it, or that something significant occurs or results from it? I believe a higher burden exists for notability when it is sourced solely on news reporting, otherwise, any event reported by more than one news source could become an article. It is my firm opinion that this article fails to meet the burden for the case of its own nobility from its sources. The more recent news articles simply underscore how little resulted from this crash except for the regrettable deaths of those people involved. That the Boston Globe picked up the story for one day does not suggest notability, rather it implies an editorial decision either on a slow news day, or in the hopes that the story would develop into something more; which it obviously didn't. --Born2flie (talk) 11:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not mean that the crash was on a different countries' soil, but indeed as you have pointed out, that the crash crossed borders in the sense that it directly affected more than one country. If Obama is simply going on vacation, perhaps add it to the List of vacations taken by Barack Obama article, or if he is on a diplomatic trip, List of diplomatic trips taken by Barack Obama or U.S. foreign affairs under Barack Obama (WP:POINTY if you go making each of those). I believe any trip taken by the most powerful man in the world is notable for inclusion in some form or another. Sure, a different form of notability exists for news reports. But my interpretation is that this event clearly fulfills any such requirements. Given the length of the article and number of references, there must be a good amount of information on the subject. Given the number alone, and nothing about the circumstances of the crash, I believe it deserves an article. For an event to be so widely picked up I'd consider it notable. Wikipedia is not paper; we have enough room for even mildly notable subjects. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you should recheck your facts. The airplane was Taiwanese and crashed in Taiwan, in a Taiwan military maneuver area; it didn't cross borders. The Singapore troops were visiting to conduct training of their own, or perhaps to participate in a joint exercise between the two countries. "...appears to have..." is the problem, there are no references defining any significant change to the operating budget, a revision of procedures, resignation of officials, etc.. There were no resignations as a result of the call for resignations...a non-event. There is even an absence of reporting on any repercussions; political or military. President Obama is traveling abroad right now and there is a lot of reporting happening about the trip. Presidents make trips overseas, but what would serve to make this one notable; that they are reporting about it, or that something significant occurs or results from it? I believe a higher burden exists for notability when it is sourced solely on news reporting, otherwise, any event reported by more than one news source could become an article. It is my firm opinion that this article fails to meet the burden for the case of its own nobility from its sources. The more recent news articles simply underscore how little resulted from this crash except for the regrettable deaths of those people involved. That the Boston Globe picked up the story for one day does not suggest notability, rather it implies an editorial decision either on a slow news day, or in the hopes that the story would develop into something more; which it obviously didn't. --Born2flie (talk) 11:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The shorter article is possibly a lead in, or summary, or created for shorter publications. Either way, the event is still being discussed more than a year after its occurrence. And this is only the English sources. That the event was even discussed in English, and picked up by The Boston Globe, would seem to me to contribute to its notability. My interpretation of the guidelines and essay is that they are intended to discourage the inclusion of purely news report content, such as a small aircraft crashing in Alaska and no one being killed or injured, yet the event still making local newspapers. This isn't just some traffic accident. This was a military plane crash that crossed borders, resulted in deaths on both sides, appears to have contributed to budgetary changes, caused a legislator to request other officials to step down, and was reported in multiple languages in national and international news sources. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean the two links to the same article by the same author, for the same newspaper, which provide no additional information on the crash or actions taken that would define it as notable by WP:AIRCRASH? Notability isn't temporary, which is why the essay, WP:AIRCRASH, attempts to define notability for Aviation crashes in order to prevent WP:NOTNEWS from being violated by articles about each and every crash. You don't see every traffic accident written up for Wikipedia the same way you see it done for Aviation. My vote still stands; delete. --Born2flie (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is probably because those are the most useful references for the article. See Odie5533's comment above, where he gives 2 articles about the event which were published a year afterwards. Also, since when is notability temporary?--Aervanath (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2009 (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.