Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Guam B-52 crash

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. v/r - TP 02:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Guam B-52 crash

edit
2008 Guam B-52 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Per my rationale for the PROD: "While a tragedy, this accident isn't notable enough for a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. Aircraft, especially military aircraft, sometimes crash; only some crashes are notable enough for articles, not all. Using WP:AIRCRASH as a guideline: there were no deaths of anyone notable enough for their own Wikipedia article, and no unclassified changes in procedures or modifications to the B-52 as a result of the crash. Therefore a standalone article seems to be unwarranted."

PROD remover stated "article meets all WP:AIRCRASH requirements" - which it does not, as mentioned above. The article makes no assertions as to meeting the requirement that "the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim)" and it fails point #3 of "meets ALL of" "The accident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directives (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft)." - no changes are claimed or inferred in the article.

As I mentioned originally, this was a tragic crash, but the article (started as a news-y page) is superfluous to the mention of the crash in the main Boeing B-52 Stratofortress article. The Bushranger One ping only 22:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 22:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 22:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 22:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Unfortunate though deaths are, WP can't memorialise every death in detail. The nominator has researched whether the article about the event meets WP guidelines, and it doesn't. Tonywalton Talk 23:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No he hasn't. In fact he didn't even cite a single guideline, only an essay...and he uses the wrong section to justify deletion. That you agree with him and complement his research makes me wonder how much you really understand the guidelines and essays involved. Buffs (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Correction, nominator cited an unofficial essay as if it were an official policy, or guideline. Further, nominator challenged the {{prod}} remover's edit summary: "keep; contested prod; Article meets all WP:AIRCRASH requirements". Assuming, for the sake of argument, compliance or noncompliance with the unofficial advice in WP:AIRCRASH should be cited in an official discussion, WP:AIRCRASH doesn't seem to say an article should meet all its criteria, meeting one criteria seems to be enough. I thought the rules for {{prod}} oblige a remover to leave an explanation on the talk page. One option open to the nominator here would have been to remind User:Buff to leave that explanation on the talk page. Who knows, if nominator asked for that explanation and the prod remover had left that expanded explanation, and our nominator had read it, maybe they would have been convinced the article should stay, and this would have saved the valuable time of everyone who has weighed in here. I think our nominator has let the project down by choosing the more confrontational approach. Geo Swan (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not at all treating WP:AIRCRASH as if it were an guideline or policy. I'm simply using it as a measuring stick to intially determine whether or not the article was worth looking further at to see whether or not it should be deleted. After looking at it further, I decided to PROD the article, then take it to AfD. Also, your comment ", WP:AIRCRASH doesn't seem to say an article should meet all its criteria, meeting one criteria seems to be enough." is not correct: it says, "for accidents involving military aircraft...the (reccomended) standard for inclusion is: the accident involved the death of a person (with their own Wikipedia bluelink)...or if this is not the case then it meets all (emphasis in original) of the followig requirements..." Which it does not. The PROD was given a reasoning in the edit summary for removal, which I took to be the explanation needed. As for "not citing a single guideline, only an essay", I assumed that it was clear that the notability of the crash was the primary policy at stake. (To be specific: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.) - The Bushranger One ping only 17:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First of all, WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, not a guideline or policy. This article fits under all criteria under WP:SPINOFF. Articles like this have been kept in numerous instances and this should be no different. No one is claiming the information isn't notable, only that it isn't notable to have its own article; this kind of thinking flies in the face of WP:SPINOFF and Wikipedia:Summary style (which are both content guidelines, not mere essays).
Furthermore, I find it laughable that someone said the nominator did his research. Every component he cites as a reason this shouldn't have its own article is in reference to inclusion in the aircraft article, not as a stand-alone article. The only thing this essay states is that it should meet all criteria under the standard WP guidelines. There is no minimum qualification for information to be "notable enough for a stand-alone article on Wikipedia", only on whether the information is notable at all and whether it should be included. It was notable in the fact that it received wide media attention and was the first non-combat crash of a B-52 since the early 90s (~20 years). Crashes of a B-52 are extremely uncommon (none since 1993). Crashes of large jets due to mechanical reasons are extremely rare. Yes, a crash of an F-16 is one thing (the US has thousands of them and a crash happens about 2x per year), but a B-52 crash is VERY rare. The standalone article works just fine by itself. Buffs (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AIRCRASH is indeed not policy, but it is a good guideline to use as an intial basis. And with regards to your second statement, it says, "If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article above it may be notable enough for a stand-alone article if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports." I.E. if it meets the criteria to be included in the article and the GNG etc., it is likely suitable for a stand-alone article. As for the fact it received "wide media attention" at the time, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER - has there been any enduring effect of the crash? Aside from the fact the B-52 fleet is one smaller: no. Any continuing news coverage? Aside from "on this day..." articles in Guam and Barksdale newspapers? Not that I'm aware of (and I'd be happy to be proven wrong on that). Was there a coverup, or a scandal (like when the B-52 crashed spilling hydrogen bombs everywhere, or the one that flew with nukes on board that nobody knew about)? No.
I'm an inclusionst, don't especially care for the fact that WP:N has become the be-all and end-all at AfD, and strongly believe in WP:IAR. But at the same time I don't believe an article that says "aircraft X of type Y crashed at place Z on date A because part B broke", and amounts to nothing more, because there is nothing more to say about the accident, should be an article on Wikipedia. The F-16 article doesn't list every F-16 crash; the rarity of B-52 crashes allows them to be included, in their entirety, in the B-52's article, which is where this should be. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, no, the B-52 page doesn't include all crashes. There were lots of crashes/incidents that happened in the first decade of the program (I have a book that catalogs all B-52 crashes/hull losses in excruciating depth...it's 250+ pages). I realize Google isn't the end-all, be -all of determining whether something is notable, but "Guam B-52 crash 2008" does get 238,000 results, so let's not say it doesn't have a lasting effect when it does.
Second, I would highly disagree that the crash didn't have any lasting effects. The fact that trim settings were determined to be a problem when there was no evidence to indicate a problem in the past 65 years of flight is indeed significant.
Lastly, given that there were fatalities and it was a highly unusual occurrence, I think it meets all notability requirements for a standalone article and is on par with the following 2008 crash articles:
...and should be included as-is. Amongst these, it is clear that general civilian transport aviation had a LOT more accidents than military, yet all of the major accidents are included. They all provide similar levels of detail.
It was also unusual in that it crashed while performing a sortie while participating in a fly-by...this is also a rare occurrence. Buffs (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete - per guidance at Wikipedia:EVENT#Inclusion_criteria, as well as meeting the GNG, an event is "probably notable if they have enduring historical significance ...or if they have a significant lasting effect." or "likely to notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards". By my reading the first is not the case. As regards the second, I was able to find a brief report on the BBC news website but no sign of follow-up - making it borderline. If the news reporting elements were trimmed out (as I think they should be) there's not a lot of key content and that can be accomodated in the B-52 article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because there was no sign of a followup doesn't mean it doesn't meet GNG criteria, GL. Your quote "likely to notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards" indicates it does not require follow-up reports in the same sources, only that it is "especially" notable otherwise. A followup isn't required by the guideline and (as shown above) it definitely was widely covered. Buffs (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:There are several reasons this event is notable enough for a separate article: (1) The flight was part of a municipal celebration and was not just a stand-alone military mission, (2) as someone has pointed out, B-52's hardly ever crash, (3) there were multiple fatalities, not just one as often happens when a single-seat fighter crashes. Cla68 (talk) 08:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Should be mentioned in the B-52 aircraft type article (which it is, to an appropriate level of depth, right now), but not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article due to the lack of enduring effects, changes to procedures or death of notable people. - Ahunt (talk) 10:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - On the basis of there being no enduring effects or coverage of the event, it was a run-of-the-mill crash. If there had been a considerable legal case against a parts manufacturer or controversy over the verdict of the cause, that would definantly put this article on the Keep side of things in my view; but there isn't. There's nothing remarkable here that couldn't be covered, as is, in the main article. The fact that there haven't been many crashes recently is simply because there's so few of them flying now (less than 70, far less frequently; than when the SAC had several thousand on 24 hour patrols.)Kyteto (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In modern aircraft, a mechanical failure resulting in fatalities is never a "run-of-the-mill" crash. Buffs (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, it is a subjective matter what is and isn't "run of the mill", not a certainty or a 'never'. My opinion is that we shouldn't play favouritism with modern aircraft,(first time I've heard anybody call the B-52 a modern aircraft) if we wouldn't have an article for an older aircraft, why should we be bias towards newer crashes? There have been more serious B-52 crashes that didn't get articles. There have been more serious crashes with similar era aircraft (Avro Vulcan for example) that didn't get an article. Why should a less serious incident on the same era aircraft get an article, simply because of what year it happened to occur on? I don't know a policy favouring this approach. Kyteto (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the cause of the crash wasn't mechanical failure, at least not proven to be. They mentioned that the trim's setting as responsible; why it was left in an unhelpful position could be a mechanical problem or pilot error (they simply forgot it was in that setting); the trim setting was most unhelpful to the type of flying they were trying to do, and the report concludes that the pilots recognised the setting's importance late on. Trim settings don't necessarily equal mechanical failure, and the USAF didn't conclude mechanical failure to have happened either; their final report is still withheld I believe. Kyteto (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose "modern" is subjective, but the B-52 has had numerous upgrades and I would consider it modern vice WWII-era aircraft. The lack of existence of one article (say on a Avro Vulcan crash) shouldn't be a reason for deletion of another. The entire point behind this article is that its entire contents in the B-52 article would be unnecessarily cumbersome. It is listed here per WP:SUMMARY and I don't see a single argument against that. These types of articles have been previously discussed and kept for precisely this reason. The final report is not withheld. Complete SIB results are not released, but portions are often released. The AIB resutls were released. There is no history of runaway trim in this jet. As a matter of fact, this event is VERY unusual in that there were NO indications something was wrong at all. There are no B-52 crashes which have exhibited these characteristics. Buffs (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not use WP:AIRCRASH as policy. Instead I used it as an intitial measuring stick to tell whether or not to look more closely at the article. I can see no enduring impact or continuing coverage of the crash. I probably should have been more specific in the intial nom as to the policies I was basing it on, and for that I apologise: the policies most relevant are WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. As for whether or not the article might be interesting to future readers and scholars, WP:ITSUSEFUL. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, I would look at the list of editors who have contributed the most to the B-52's main article before accusing those of us opposing this article's existing of "not being interested in it". Some of us are very interested in the B-52 and what it has done, and have read and written a lot to give it fair and even coverage; doesn't mean we have to support willy-nilly whole articles on any particular aspect or incident involving a B-52 under the sun. Kyteto (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 19:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a subsection in the main article, which covers the crash nicely in one sentence: On 21 July 2008, a B-52H, Raider 21, AF Serial No. 60-0053, deployed from Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana to Andersen Air Force Base, Guam crashed approximately 25 miles (40 km) off the coast of Guam. All six aviators were killed (five standard crewmembers and a flight surgeon).. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Important...how? Nobody who was notable was killed in the crash, and no changes were made to operating procedures as a result of the crash. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and including articles on crashes in which the answer to the questions answered above is "no/no" is...well, exactly that: indiscriminate collection of information. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:54, 8 October 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2008_Guam_B-52_crash&oldid=1068818511"