297:. 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.
76:
312:, 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
71:
300:
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 ), and the arbitrary criterion for inclusion (why 50? why not any other natural number) is not a good reason
445:
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
304:
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
Knowledge (XXG) editor).
142:
137:
146:
258:
486:
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
129:
197:
192:
201:
184:
133:
188:
125:
62:
252:
360:
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
392:
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
309:
180:
622:
601:
584:
543:
520:
504:
481:
450:
406:
383:
367:
349:
329:
56:
273:
240:
234:
169:
418:
337:
230:
280:
374:
101:
116:
246:
434:
500:
430:
325:
438:
96:
89:
17:
592:
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...
442:
568:
458:
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.
110:
106:
491:), and of course the whole listing is dramatically too extended. It would definitively require a decent amount of WP:TNT.
422:
52:. NC as the keep arguments don’t really address the or/synth issue but clearly never going to reach a delete consensus.
639:
40:
539:
173:
313:
560:
77:
Articles for deletion/List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities (2nd nomination)
496:
321:
556:
509:
316:
but for which no reliable source which shows actual notability (as opposed to subjective interest) exists.
580:
535:
426:
488:
635:
552:
36:
516:
421:. It's perfectly reasonable to list superlatives in a category with a cutoff even if it's arbitrary.
402:
492:
362:
345:
317:
266:
72:
Articles for deletion/List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities
290:
618:
597:
576:
85:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
634:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
459:
512:
398:
572:
394:
294:
378:
341:
447:
609:. If the name of the article is the only reason being cited for deletion, while the
614:
593:
53:
218:
163:
613:
of the article is a notable topic, then the answer is to rename the page. —
126:
List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities
63:
List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities
310:
List of aircraft accidents and incidents by number of ground fatalities
181:
List of aircraft accidents and incidents by number of ground fatalities
630:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
575:
issue here. The numbers of fatalities are a matter of record.
564:
397:
concerns). Nomination feels very “baby and bath water” here.
551:
per Reywas92. There are plenty of lists out there, e.g.
214:
210:
206:
159:
155:
151:
265:
279:
419:List of deadliest aircraft accidents and incidents
569:The Most Deadly Plane Crashes In Aviation History
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
642:). No further edits should be made to this page.
373:Note: This discussion has been included in the
336:Note: This discussion has been included in the
561:Deadliest commercial airline crashes in history
338:list of Aviation-related deletion discussions
8:
117:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
375:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
372:
335:
435:List of tallest buildings in Philadelphia
289:An arbitrary list criteria which fails
69:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
431:List of tallest buildings in Chicago
439:List of tallest structures in Tokyo
24:
443:List of the oldest living people
102:Introduction to deletion process
571:(Aviation Voice). There is no
425:has a cutoff of 135,000 tons.
1:
433:has a 600-foot cutoff while
429:has those above 5 million.
423:List of largest cruise ships
308:The same concerns apply to
92:(AfD)? Read these primers!
659:
437:has a 400-foot cutoff and
57:10:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
623:21:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
602:11:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
585:06:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
544:04:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
521:05:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
505:00:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
482:22:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
451:21:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
407:21:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
384:17:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
368:16:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
350:15:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
330:15:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
301:to have a separate list.
632:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
557:Aviation Safety Network
441:just lists the top 50.
68:AfDs for this article:
427:List of largest cities
390:Speedy keep and rename
174:edits since nomination
90:Articles for deletion
553:100 worst accidents
534:– per others here.
365:
536:United States Man
386:
363:
352:
314:WP:ITSINTERESTING
107:Guide to deletion
97:How to contribute
650:
478:
475:
472:
469:
466:
463:
381:
284:
283:
269:
222:
204:
167:
149:
87:
34:
658:
657:
653:
652:
651:
649:
648:
647:
646:
640:deletion review
549:Keep and rename
476:
473:
470:
467:
464:
461:
379:
226:
195:
179:
140:
124:
121:
84:
81:
66:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
656:
654:
645:
644:
626:
625:
604:
587:
546:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
493:RandomCanadian
453:
409:
387:
370:
364:Pontificalibus
354:
353:
318:RandomCanadian
287:
286:
223:
177:
120:
119:
114:
104:
99:
82:
80:
79:
74:
67:
65:
60:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
655:
643:
641:
637:
633:
628:
627:
624:
620:
616:
612:
608:
605:
603:
599:
595:
591:
588:
586:
582:
578:
574:
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
550:
547:
545:
541:
537:
533:
530:
529:
522:
518:
514:
511:
510:WP:NOTCLEANUP
508:
507:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
485:
484:
483:
480:
479:
457:
454:
452:
449:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
417:
413:
410:
408:
404:
400:
396:
391:
388:
385:
382:
376:
371:
369:
366:
359:
356:
355:
351:
347:
343:
339:
334:
333:
332:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
306:
302:
298:
296:
292:
282:
278:
275:
272:
268:
264:
260:
257:
254:
251:
248:
245:
242:
239:
236:
232:
229:
228:Find sources:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
203:
199:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
175:
171:
165:
161:
157:
153:
148:
144:
139:
135:
131:
127:
123:
122:
118:
115:
112:
108:
105:
103:
100:
98:
95:
94:
93:
91:
86:
78:
75:
73:
70:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
631:
629:
610:
606:
589:
577:Clarityfiend
548:
531:
489:WP:NOTMIRROR
460:
455:
446:fatalities.
415:
411:
389:
357:
307:
303:
299:
288:
276:
270:
262:
255:
249:
243:
237:
227:
83:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
253:free images
513:Dronebogus
399:Dronebogus
636:talk page
380:Spiderone
342:Shellwood
37:talk page
638:or in a
501:contribs
448:Reywas92
361:one.----
326:contribs
291:WP:LISTN
170:View log
111:glossary
39:or in a
615:Mhawk10
611:content
594:Godot13
358:Comment
259:WPÂ refs
247:scholar
198:protect
193:history
143:protect
138:history
88:New to
54:Spartaz
416:rename
231:Google
202:delete
147:delete
573:WP:OR
477:Focus
395:WP:OR
295:WP:OR
274:JSTOR
235:books
219:views
211:watch
207:links
164:views
156:watch
152:links
16:<
619:talk
607:Keep
598:talk
590:Keep
581:talk
540:talk
532:Keep
517:talk
497:talk
456:Keep
414:and
412:Keep
403:talk
346:talk
322:talk
293:and
267:FENS
241:news
215:logs
189:talk
185:edit
160:logs
134:talk
130:edit
567:),
565:CNN
559:),
503:)
328:)
281:TWL
168:– (
621:)
600:)
583:)
542:)
519:)
499:/
405:)
377:.
348:)
340:.
324:/
261:)
217:|
213:|
209:|
205:|
200:|
196:|
191:|
187:|
172:|
162:|
158:|
154:|
150:|
145:|
141:|
136:|
132:|
617:(
596:(
579:(
563:(
555:(
538:(
515:(
495:(
474:m
471:a
468:e
465:r
462:D
401:(
344:(
320:(
285:)
277:·
271:·
263:·
256:·
250:·
244:·
238:·
233:(
225:(
221:)
183:(
176:)
166:)
128:(
113:)
109:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.