From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Notability
A web search for "asian spirit" runway masbate turned up at least seven independent reliable sources with coverage of this incident including the fact that the aircraft was damaged. Philippines Daily Inquirer [1] GMA News TV in the Philippines [2] Asia Observer [3] Xinhua News Agency [4] ABS CBN News [5] Manila Standard [6] Manila Bulletin [7] I think this demonstrates notability per WP:N, and the notability tag is unnecessary. If there are any objections, please discuss them here. Thanks, - Neparis (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- To be notable, an aircraft incident article has to establish notability beyone just the intial media coverage. According to this article, there was no loss of life, no loss of aircraft, no odd or unusual circumstances involved, and no notable persons on board. WHat makes this event different than any any other minor accident out there? If there is something, the article doesn't show it. Until that standard is met, please leave the tag. Btw, I seriously considered just sending the article to AFD, which you could not delete. Rather than do that without warning or discussion, I posted the tag. I can still AFD the page, and will do that if the tag is removed again, or if the notability issue is not addressed in the article per the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force#Notability guidelines with a couple of weeks. While the "Notability guidelines" are just proposals, accident articles just like this one have been deleted under WP:N's notability policy. - BillCJ (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I didn't think that someone changing tags is a reason to AFD this page?????///!!!!111 I don't care about this page so deleting it has no effect on me, but, that isn't really wikipedia spirit. Buckethed (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's not, and I didn't imply that it was the reason I would nominate it..............\\\\\\\\@@@@@@@2222222 I believe in discussing improvements to pages before the AFD process, and that doing that ispart of the "wikipede spirit". That doesn't mean I don't think I have a case, but that I believe in that AFD's are a hostile environment for discussing an article. But this is NOT my idea of a discussion. No one has yet proven this article is notable from reliable sources, nor is anyone addressing the issue. I don't have to discuss anything before nominating a page for AFD, but I don't like having it thrown back in my face either. So please, let's address the issue of whether this article proves its notability from reliable sources. If no one is interested in doing that, then I'm not going to waste my time discussing it with myself. - BillCJ (talk) 06:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- To be honest, looking at the article at present, it doesn't seem to be that notable, in that the plane had a minor incident, no-one was injured, and also the incident itself was by a random weather event. I guess it would be important to include it in a list of total incidents involving damage to planes, so that someone could form an unbiased opinion as to the % of plane incidents / accidents that are fatal / not... Although I know this isn't the purpose of the aviation incident/accident part of wikipedia. I suppose, for notability, it would have to be shown that it was more than just a random weather event, that the cause was something which was 'notable' enough to cause changes to procedure, or had major implications for that airline, or for the aviation service in that country / area.. So I suppose that kind of thing is what people should look for, to make it notable. Buckethed (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
