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 Snowball keep. BJ^Talk 04:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 FedEx Crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Seems too soon to have an article for an incident that may not even be notable? I'm not sure about this one so it seems more appropriate to put it up for discussion, if I've made a bad call, it will obviously close as keep! Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're so keen to have an article created literally minutes ago about an event that is still playing out. Yes, we don't know the full details or if it will turn out to be notable, but I think it's highly premature to be making such assumptions. It's not doing any harm by existing, and if it turns out to not be important, then it should be put up for notability review. --Resplendent (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at WP:NOHARM. Wikinews is probably a more appropriate venue for this. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously there are reliable sources, so that's not an issue. Therefore I can only assume your problem with the article is its possible notability. How are you so sure it won't be notable when it literally just happened? By your logic, no articles on aviation accidents should be created until the investigation is completed. --Resplendent (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::::*Why are you so convinced that it is notable? I think it was a bad decision creating the article right after it happened, rather than wait for everything to pan out. At the moment, the correct place for this information is at WikiNews. Tavix (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We learned quickly that the pilots died and the aircraft sustained serious damage. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bad decision? Why's that. It's not like I wasted any of your time writing it. --Resplendent (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit Conflict) WP:NOTNEWS also seems to apply here. If the event turns out to be notable, the article can be created then. Seriously consider writing something about this on Wikinews. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the "News reports" section you will see that some news events are noteworthy and some are not; the section explains it. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it should be there as well. --Resplendent (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I did a lot of research on this one before making my decision. While the article suffers from recentism, I am convinced it fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:AIRCRASH's general and aircraft criteria. If something happens from this that results in the change of policy (which I don't think that will happen), I am not bias against recreation. Tavix (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing vote to Keep as I voted before the deaths were reported. Tavix (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • A fatal accident and/or a hull loss almost always involves a declaration from the country's civil aviation investigation board. Some policy will be addressed. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: A hull loss confers notability in an accident and incident. Tavix and Jenuk, the video of the incident shows a massive fire and structural deformation. Also the pilots may have died. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A hull loss confers notability in an accident and incident" - Where does it state that? What does the fact that pilots may have died have to do with anything? We don't have articles for every death! Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is where: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Continental Airlines Flight 1404 - Look at this AFD. Look at what happened to it. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:OTHERCRAP Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • And OTHERCRAP says "However, a small number of debates do receive wide participation and result in a decision that is effectively final, until new evidence comes along. If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." - This is CLEARLY a similar case (aircraft hull loss, injuries to passengers) and the outcome was a speedy keep. This section is not a blanket ban on referencing other deletion debates. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The nomination was withdrawn in that instance after about a day, the AfD did not even run its full course. I won't be withdrawing this nom unless I see evidence of notability. Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please look at why the nomination was withdrawn and the AFD closed as Speedy Keep. The nominator of that AFD said 'Looks like the issues that led me to nom this article to begin with have been addressed. Per the aircraft's apparent writeoff and the "unusual circumstances" surrounding the incident (and the fact that the article is now quite a bit longer, more detailed, better-sourced), I say keep it.' - Look at how the debate evolved as time passed and more information became available. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Folks, this is why we have notability guidelines! Instead of arguing and speculating about whether this is notable, the guideline, which has been established with consensus, lots of discussion, and lots of evaluation of other AfD, should be the basic standard. Please refer to WP:AIRCRASH. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficiently notable accident. DGG (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Clearly needs to be kept, I doubt the Owners, Insurance firms or the familys of those either dead or injured would consider it a non event, doubt boeing or the FAA would either, seems the main stream news agencys consider it a event also, fancy that! Moggiethemeow (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not to mention the Japanese authorities. NOTE to readers: Boeing has acquired McDonnell-Douglas so it is responsible for the MD-11. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - any commercial jet crash is an important event in the history of civil aviation, and thus - notable.--98.243.175.76 (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC) — 98.243.175.76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - if we deleted it, it would just be reinstated at present. Leave it for a week and then have the debate, but at present would seem to pass basic notability criteria. Rgds, (pilot) --81.153.126.238 (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP, it is a large aircraft that has been destroyed at a major airport, with loss of life, substantial disruption to the airport's operations (if you honestly believe that an airport will be able to continue functioning normally with a burning upside-down MD-11 on one of its runways, I have a bridge to sell you), and possible implications regarding the design and safety of the aircraft (as two very similar accidents have occurred previously with the same type of aircraft). Also (because I know some Wikipedians have an almost slavish reliance on rules and no flexibility whatsoever), quoting from WP:AIRCRASH:"It is an accident which involves a scheduled or charter air carrier. An occurence that results in serious injury or loss of life is an accident by definition." Last I checked, FedEx is a scheduled air carrier, and according to [1] and [2], the pilots are both dead. I don't see how this article's notability can possibly be in question. Nick L. (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Hull loss of a scheduled flight of one of the world's major cargo airlines. It's notable. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 02:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a major air crash at a major airport. Hard to believe this was even nominated. Kristof15 (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets notability guideline (WP:AIRCRASH). Nom's reason "Seems too soon to have an article" is not a criteria for deletion. This is why we have a notability guideline, so that articles like this can be correctly evaluated, based on the outcome of many, many past AfDs. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Kristof15.--James Bond (talk) 03:23, 23 March 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.