Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities (2nd nomination)

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. NC as the keep arguments don’t really address the or/synth issue but clearly never going to reach a delete consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

An arbitrary list criteria which fails WP:LISTN and WP:OR. There is no reliable source which makes a distinction about aircraft accidents involving more than 50 fatalities and those involving less. There's maybe a distinction between those involving any and those involving none (i.e. fatal accidents vs. other less tragic ones, including hull losses without loss of life), but not at an arbitrary number of fatal casualties. Given that no other source has made this compilation or anything ressembling it, then, this is by definition "original research which has not been published anywhere else". On top of the obviously OR and unsupported statements such as attributing a near exact number to each plane involved in the 2001 attacks.

On top of that, this is duplicative of other lists which separate these accidents into more plausible groups (by year of event, or aircraft type involved, or commercial aircraft accidents only [given most GA accidents are not notable, that's a valid distinction]), and the arbitrary criterion for inclusion (why 50? why not any other natural number) is not a good reason to have a separate list.

The only useful content, the "History" section, is obviously about aircraft accidents in general, except for a few select mentions of "firsts" (and whether these are truly firsts or not is hard to verify without an actual secondary source doing the OR instead of a Wikipedia editor).

The same concerns apply to List of aircraft accidents and incidents by number of ground fatalities, including the OR bit, as well as the arbitrary selection (is there really a significant difference between accidents involving fatalities on the ground and those which do not? most fatal accidents which result in ground fatalities also include on-board fatalities; the few that don't are odd-ball cases, which might be WP:ITSINTERESTING but for which no reliable source which shows actual notability (as opposed to subjective interest) exists. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's reasonable to have a list article for notable fatal aviation accidents that contains a table ordered by the number of fatalities. Does such a table exist in another article? If not we certainly shouldn't delete this one.----Pontificalibus 16:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and rename the nominator is essentially complaining about the title. Listing aircraft accidents by number of casualties makes perfect sense and the list was good enough to get featured quality (though maybe that should be reviewed per WP:OR concerns). Nomination feels very “baby and bath water” here. Dronebogus (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename List of deadliest aircraft accidents and incidents. It's perfectly reasonable to list superlatives in a category with a cutoff even if it's arbitrary. List of largest cruise ships has a cutoff of 135,000 tons. List of largest cities has those above 5 million. List of tallest buildings in Chicago has a 600-foot cutoff while List of tallest buildings in Philadelphia has a 400-foot cutoff and List of tallest structures in Tokyo just lists the top 50. List of the oldest living people arbitrarily has 50 items. Deadly airplane accidents is a notable thing to list, but we can't have them all for 50 fatalities was chosen for selection criteria. Grouping by year or aircraft type does not provide this overall context. I do think it's also relevant to have a listing for ground fatalities. Reywas92^Talk 21:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Reywas92 about the rename. If a list is too long a discussion on the talk page can be had about a cut off point. Dream Focus 22:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the addresses the OR concerns, which at this stage would remain even if the list were to be cut down: a look at the sources confirms that these are individual accident reports, they're all mostly from one source (Aviation Safety Network - which brings up issues of WP:NOTMIRROR), and of course the whole listing is dramatically too extended. It would definitively require a decent amount of WP:TNT. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:NOTCLEANUP Dronebogus (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per others here. United States Man (talk) 04:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Reywas92. There are plenty of lists out there, e.g. 100 worst accidents (Aviation Safety Network), Deadliest commercial airline crashes in history (CNN), The Most Deadly Plane Crashes In Aviation History (Aviation Voice). There is no WP:OR issue here. The numbers of fatalities are a matter of record. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per others (though I'm hardly neutral). Many of the same issues were brought up in the first AfD for this list in 2013...Godot13 (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the name of the article is the only reason being cited for deletion, while the content of the article is a notable topic, then the answer is to rename the page. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2022 (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.