Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FedEx Express Flight 87 (2nd nomination)

FedEx Express Flight 87

AfDs for this article:

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

FedEx Express Flight 87 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

The first source only mentions the accident as part of statistics and there’s no significant coverage; the second source contains no mention of the accident; the third is a database entry so it doesn’t establish notability; the fourth is better than the rest but still does not contain significant coverage. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 11:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Aviationwikiflight:, please learn what a secondary source is. All references in the nominated article are secondary sources. Aviation accident investigation bodies are indepenent of airlines and aircraft manufacturers, and are no primary sources. This applies to other articles you have nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mjroots: Per WP:SECONDARY,A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Per WP:NOTNEWS,Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. Sources 1,3,5, and 6 are all either primary or first-hand breaking news coverage of the event; sources 2 and 4 are tertiary as they're databases. None of these sources include any sort of "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis" based on primary sources. There are clearly zero sources in the article that are secondary (nor in the others that I nominated). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't make them "primary sources". This is a bizzare reinterpretation of what "primary source" is, and it's a troubling one. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not exactly a bizarre nor troubling interpretation. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS:Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is certainly not a bizarre reinterpretation that an air accident investigation is a primary source. These are classic primary sources for the question as to what happened in an aviation accident. That they analyse the question of what happened, and pull together evidence, recordings and interviews is not enough to make them secondary. They are primary in the sense that any piece of research analysis is primary. They are a studied account of what happened. Research, government reports etc., are all primary sources for the same reason. See, for instance, [7], or any such guide. The official air accident investigation report is certainly a primary source.
    But the question usually has some shades of grey. The question as to whether information is primary or secondary often depends on the question asked of the source. But what question are you asking here? If the question is "is this air accident notable" then it clearly makes no sense to argue that notability is demonstrated by the existence of the air accident investigation report. Every air accident has one of those. So either the argument is that they are all, by definition, notable, or else the existence of such a report can add nothing to an indication of notability. If they are all notable, there needs to be an SNG saying so. The existence of this primary source can add nothing to the question. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to FedEx Express#Major incidents and accidents, suggested by the nom. in a reply above, so presumably the nom. is content too. This over the other suggestion as this article already contains mention of this accident and salient details. It is not a keep, because we have no secondary sources, and no sustained interest in this event. All we have is the accident investigation (all crashes have these) and a couple of contemporary news accounts that are primary per WP:PRIMARYNEWS and nothing that is WP:SUSTAINED. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FedEx_Express_Flight_87_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1289869443"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FedEx Express Flight 87 (2nd nomination), released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.