Talk:Conviasa Flight 2350

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Venezuela Low‑importance

	Venezuela portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Venezuela, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Venezuela on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VenezuelaWikipedia:WikiProject VenezuelaTemplate:WikiProject VenezuelaVenezuela articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2010s Low‑importance

	2010s portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Notability[edit]

I've tagged this article with {{notability|events}} as there is an ongoing dispute as to the merits of the immediate creation of these types of aircrash articles and their compliance with WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:EVENT, which is currently under discussion at the following proposal:Wikipedia:Notability (fatal hull loss civil aviation accidents). Please do not remove the tag until this dispute is resolved and that proposal is either accepted/rejected/other, or until such time as it becomes obvious from the external sources that this crash will be historically significant. MickMacNee (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the tag, but will leave it in place for now. Mjroots2 (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as a reminder, seeing as people are now edit warring to remove the tag, never mind EVENT or NOT, which both demand evidence of lasting notability or significance beyond simple news coverage, even the Aviation Project's own essay on aircrash notability, WP:AIRCRASH. does not recommend the creation of a standalone article based simply on the fact this is (apparently, unconfirmed as of now) Conviasa's worst crash to date. With no apparent ground fatalities, it is also nowhere near being Venezuela's most serious aircrash to date, even if all aboard died, per this list. And with 23 confirmed survivors, it is also not remotely the worst hull loss accident of this type of aircraft, the ATR-42, per this list. MickMacNee (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However there is a general principle to consider.

Memset said here: "But when assessing the notability of a recent event, especially the long-term significance, we have to make guesses. Otherwise we would have to delete most articles about recent events, because there is rarely a way to definitely prove lasting notability shortly after the event has happened. As WP:EVENT says, "that an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." (In the same way, every AfD discussion is in fact nothing other than WP:Original research. We don't want this in articles, but it is necessary for assessing the notability of a subject since we will find few reliable sources that directly say "subject X is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.")"

This is why aircrash articles are created almost instantly after they happen. Because we "guess" that they will be notable, even if proof doesn't immediately surface.

And based on AFD results, these "guesses" prove accurate.

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's entitled to his opinion, but he is not describing how Afd or Wikipedia works at all. We do not make guesses like this, and the Afd record on these articles is what is in dispute right now, as more often than not, the arguments being made are weak, innaccurate, or just plain invalid. If he or you disagree, feel free to present some wording from WP:AFD that supports this pre-emptive approach to inclusion, but the single sentence he presented is far removed from being an actual allowance of this specific article. It is simply cherry picking a convenient part of it which sort of supports creation, without giving proper consideration to the rest of, the majority infact, of the advice of the actual guideline, which absolutely discourages such guesswork. And he is simply wrong to claim we have no reliable way to make these guesses beforehand - AIRCRASH already does a pretty good job of detailing what is likely to lead to lasting notability, all it needs is for people to actually follow it. And even that certainly does not advocate such guesswork, as can been in the Principles section of it. MickMacNee (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And by the by, when have you ever seen any notability guideline actually asks for an external source that directly says "subject X is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.", this is just bizarre way to make this point tbh. The current guidelines already make it more than clear what the sources need to be saying, and routine news reports do not cut it in that regard. MickMacNee (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an edit note by the notability tag. It's not worth edit warring over, and maybe the edit note will encourage further discussion here. Mjroots2 (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIRCRASH says "Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact."

I haven't read the whole essay, but a few things:

"the arguments being made are weak, innaccurate, or just plain invalid." - That happens in every AFD, but if there are sufficient arguments that are strong and accurate, then other posters simply need to say "per nom" or "per so-and-so" - The good arguments usually come out of the woodwork as an AFD nomination progresses

In practice most crashes of commercial airliners which all have hull losses and fatalities are of significant lasting and historical interest and impact. It's the way the industry works. We know a notable accident when it happens. There is an established procedure that is certain to happen, and a process that certainly happens.

So to go ahead and delete an article even though one knows that notable information (and therefore will have to restore it) is coming wouldn't make sense. A commercial airliner crash is like a major bombing or terrorist attack, or a sudden natural disaster. When it happens, we know it is notable.

And as you saw with UPS Flight 6, before the AFD runs its course, the material that satisfies the "significant lasting and historical interest and impact" criterion already appears, so the AFD is doomed as soon as that info appears in the media.

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I simply disagree, and you really aren't going to change my mind if your only argument is pure assertion. Every single hull loss aircrash is like a terrorist incident? Like a sudden flood? No way. Not in the slightest. And Wikipedia is not the aviation industry, you are on severely shaky ground if you are wanting to compare the concepts of general Wikipedia notability with lasting industry interest. You seem to be part of the camp that wants to argue that just because accidents get investigated (as they always are), then it doesn't even matter what the conclusions are, this is automatic evidence of significance. It simply isn't. And even UPS 6 is still on dodgy ground - there are no firm conclusions yet to prove anything, it's claim to notability is still at best based on speculation and assumption, until an official report says otherwise. All that was presented in that Afd beyond the usual irrelevancies, was a bit of extra evidence of external interest in the crash, based on previous crashes. That hardly justifies an entire article on that single crash, which again, is something that AIRCRASH already makes perfectly clear - the notability there is clearly focused on cockpit fire crashes as a topic, not UPS 6 alone. MickMacNee (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you have pointed out many times, MickMacNee, WP:AIRCRASH is a ~~guideline~~ essay. That means an editor is free to ignore it if (s)he feels it necessary. It doesn't seem to have the support that it had, say, a year ago. That's fine, because consensus can change over time. Your may (or may not) be aware that the Alrosa Mirny Air Enterprise Flight 514 article has been taken to AfD, not on WP:NOTNEWS grounds, but on notability grounds. IMHO, although the nom is flawed (crash is clearly notable), it is for the right reason - notability instead of news. Mjroots2 (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean essay, not guideline (I did, and have amended the text. MJR). And someone nominating an article for Afd about a crash that happened 6 days ago, is clearly doing so based on NOT#NEWS, whether they state it or not. People obviously cannot nominate it on grounds of lack of historic notability after just 6 days. And as we see there, your vote for example is again just a simple essay of your personal opinions about what makes an exciting/interesting aircrash, you don't bother making a single reference to any Wikipedia guidance, or to external sources, to actually support it, so how you think that sort of approach is transferable to other wildly different crashes to show how they are all JN and not challengable, is just beyond me. And as usual, plenty of people in there are also simply asserting that 'its notable', without offering any proof. Any outside observer trying to discern were the bar is, is left without a clue, not a single idea, why this crash is notable. And so it goes on, as the Aviation wikiproject makes up its own standards with not a care in the world as to what happens in the rest of the project. This demonstrates perfectly what is wrong with the people claiming that their Afd record is worth anything in this topic. See WP:CONLIMITED for a rebuttal of this whole idea that people can freewheel through this issue, choosing to ignore essays and guidelines when they don't help their cause, and choosing never to write the guideance that supports the supposedly changed consensus in the field. And as ever, a few of the votes are the usual predictable handwaving or perhim votes, to cap it off as a roundly pointless exercise. No, if people don't bother backing up their argumentation in any form of guidance, be it essay, wp:guideline or what, then they are doing nothing, not a single thing, to solve this dispute. I personally find it hilarious nobody in that Afd has even bothered to give a basic outline of the design of a Tupolev's 154's electrical systems. Comparisons to an Airbus 320 sound ludicrous from what I know of the topic. But I don't fancy wading into that one, lest I get the usual 'the community has spoken' nonsense replies or the basic trolling, ignored by admins like yourself, while I try and tease out the tiniest but of evidence there is some clue at work behind those votes. MickMacNee (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infact, it is User:C1010 who comes closest to giving a decent reason to keep, but sadly, if the closing admin does his job properly, his opinion has to be devauled by the fact he has not provided evidence to back up his claim that it is an unprecedented failure for the type. And even then of course, this is not something AIRCRASH supports as a reason for creating a standalone article. But as we see, nobody there is likely to ever point out that inconvenient truth, or do something about it. Infact, you would only have to prove that claim, and wait a week or two to see if this medal stuff is true, before it would actually probably undeniably pass AIRCRASH without the need for any of the usual arguments from assertion and personal essays. But as you and others are apparently now routinely ignoring it out of choice, maybe this has passed you all by. I find this very ironic tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If one is to take precedence on wikipedia there are other Aviation articles of smaller value on here. Per the above guideline WP:Ignore gives editor's discretion to keep such articles.

And at any rate, perhaps WP:Aviation needs to clarify this. More firmer set? Wheres the discussion on creating this guideline? WP:Consensus can change(Lihaas (talk) 06:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Lihaas, see WT:AV. Mjroots (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly notable. Another disruptive edit from this "user". Lugnuts (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only disruption is here is from you and your patented brand of argumentation, which consists solely of pure assertion coupled with personal attacks. If anybody wants an idea of how good your ideas about what is 'clearly notable' or not, you are the user who removed the PROD from this article, because you thought it should go through this Afd, which is a landslide delete. And you have had the brass balls in the past to tell me when it is and isn't SNOWing. You know nothing about anything, so if you would kindly stop removing the template that is perfectly valid, that would be grand. Or we can discuss your editting at ANI. MickMacNee (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would submit that as long as you say stuff like "you know nothing about anything," you're not going to get taken too seriously when you accuse others of making personal attacks. C628 (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the person who is charged with taking it seriously though? I really don't think so. MickMacNee (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the bit about Trinidad and Tobago immediately suspending Conviasa from its territory. Already the aftereffects and consequences are occurring. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is still only two items of the same section in AIRCRASH, A1 and A5. And it is very clear in that regard - "If the accident or incident matches criteria only in this section, then coverage should normally be on the article about the aircraft or airline". I would think it's also pretty debatable whether A5 is substantially met. Would the Venezuala - Trinidad corridor really represent a a significant proportion of their activities? It is one of only 8 international destinatoins according to our own article. And I notice once again as often happens, that even the significance of A1 is diluted when you learn that the operator has only existed for 6 years. MickMacNee (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Trinidad is a small part of Conviasa's network, in terms of Trinidad the suspension is important. http://www.newsday.co.tt/news/0,127535.html shows concerns about Trinidadians being stranded on Margarita Island, as Conviasa is the only airline to fly Trinidad-Margarita. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably moot now, given below, but on this point, for an island of 420,000 inhabitants, I think it's amazing there is even a daily service, let alone the fact that only one airline can sustain it. Being state owned probably explains that, and I don't think this represents a remotely remarkable, let alone historically significant, fact of this crash. In the enourmosly unlikely event that sources do cover this in future, I very much doubt that this would make it into such a piece. MickMacNee (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding, an event of national significance for a country tends to be notable as per WP:EVENT, even if the country is relatively small. WP:EVENT says "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." - Something effecting Trinidad has national significance for Trinidad & Tobago. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of tag[edit]

A third different editor has removed the notability tag. Can we now take it as consensus that the article does meet WP:N? Mjroots (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to leave it off for now. Not because it now passes WP:EVENT or WP:N, but because the new developments of national mouring and temporary grounding mean that it would probably not be worth the time testing it againt those pages at Afd right now in the current climate of anything goes, in particular the hand waves. In a year or two's time probably, depending on the investigation's findings, but not now. It's worth noting that the article still fails WP:AIRCRASH, and that the most recent tag remover thought it was "clearly notable" even before these developments, when he tried to remove it three days earlier. [1][2]. Other than you, there was only him and User:Eugen Simion 14 who tried to remove it, and neither has a particularly good record on judging notability, per this and this. MickMacNee (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mick, are you saying that Cathay Pacific Flight 256 (1st diff in your post) is notable? I !voted "delete" there. Even the article's creator supports deletion. Mjroots (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no. I'm saying that Lugnuts, the person who thought it should be taken to Afd insted of PRODded, is not the person to be putting your faith in to claim a triumverate of consensus on what is and is not "clearly notable", and thus remove the tag. MickMacNee (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I understand now. Maybe you should have linked to this edit by Lugnuts, which removed the PROD from the Cathay Pacific Flight 256 article. Mjroots (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Registration[edit]

It seems that not all Venezuelan registered aircraft have a hyphen in their registration. In this case, the aircraft bore the registration YV1010 and not YV-1010, per this photo taken in November 2006. Mjroots (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French BEA link[edit]

The BEA link in French is here: http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/puerto.ordaz/com15septembre2010.php - http://www.webcitation.org/670IHSxqs WhisperToMe (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conviasa Flight 2350. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Conviasa Flight 2350. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]