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

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=FedEx Express Flight 87}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=FedEx Express Flight 87}})

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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Philippines. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• speedy delete as recreation of deleted material; in any case this is a relatively minor accident of no interest outside of standard accident investigation, except of course for those whose shipments were damaged or lost. Mangoe (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• :{{u|Mangoe}} it looks like CSD doesn't apply in this case. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep The aircraft was written off, and the crash was part of the record - for instance being mentioned again in articles on other crashes such as [https://www.gainesville.com/story/news/2002/08/09/engine-failure-ruled-out-in-fedex-crash/31612233007/] [http://www.airsafenews.com/2009/03/crash-of-fedex-express-md-11-near-tokyo.html] (those don't meet GNG for this crash, but the article meets GNG and the crash is well documented.) The previous AfD wasn't that well attended so speedy delete doesn't make sense here. SportingFlyer T·C 14:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep The aircraft accident was caused by blockage of pitot tubes which has resulted in fatal plane accidents like Birgenair Flight 301 and Aeroperu Flight 603. Also, comparing it to the other FedEx accidents like FedEx Express Flight 630, it had more damage and more long-lasting importance. The entire plane was submerged in the Subic Bay. If you're going to delete this article, then delete almost all the FedEx accidents Wikipedia articles. They all have the same amount of notability as this one. We got plenty of sources and a full report. Plus, the accident report clearly listed recommendations and changes after this accident. The plane was also declared a hull loss with the entire plane being completely submerged and destroyed except the cockpit. Zaptain United (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• :WP:WHATABOUTX is not an argument. We evaluate the notability of events on their individual merit, not based on other articles. Just because recommendations were issued doesn't mean that they were implemented. Can you prove that the accident actually led to changes in procedures and had lasting effects? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Comment: An event can also be notable without a lasting effect per wikipedia:EVENTCRITERIA point 2, if the event had widespread coverage, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Ok… and where is that re-analysis? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Here it is : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrxtQv6zUuo. Also in the report it stated on page 158, that because of this accident, Boeing revised the MD-11 Flight Crew Operating Manual to provide additional guidance to flight crews. The guidance states that if any two of the following alerts are displayed simultaneously, the crew should use these alerts as valid indications to immediately refer to the “Airspeed Lost, Suspect, or Erratic” checklist: “SEL ELEV FEEL MAN”; “SEL FADEC ALTN’; “SEL FLAP LIM OVRD.” https://web.archive.org/web/20220209071829/https://fdx.alpa.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=38G%2BwiGL7qs%3D&tabid=3202Zaptain United (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::YouTube is an unreliable source and the person who published the recreation of the event is not a subject-matter expert (see WP:SPS). Although there was a change in procedure (thank you for finding it), the coverage is still subpar and we're still lacking a secondary source which is required per WP:WHYN. {{Tq|We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources.}} Maybe as an alternative, the article could be merged into Pitot tube#Aircraft and accidents or FedEx Express#Major incidents and accidents. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Aren't these secondary sources, that are used in the article?
• :::::FedEx MD-11 in Subic Bay overrun | News | Flight Global
• :::::FEDEX CREW SURVIVES CRASH CARRIER LOSES COURT ROUND | Journal of Commerce
• :::::I thought these were secondary sources? Zaptain United (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::These are all first-hand news reports of the accident so they all qualify as primary sources. Secondary sources normally contain {{Tq|analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis}} of the event based on primary sources. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::There is a lot of information of this accident. Also, the DC-10 and MD-11 have had incidents involving anomalous airspeed indications. It was a problem affecting the aircraft like the bounce landing problem. It caused two different World Airways incidents and some minor incidents. It is clear that blockage of pitot tubes has affected those planes. What makes this accident different is that this was a hull loss and caused changes to prevent blockage of pitot tubes on Md-11 planes. I think it can stand on its own.https://web.archive.org/web/20220209071829/https://fdx.alpa.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=38G%2BwiGL7qs%3D&tabid=3202Zaptain United (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, only real-time coverage, no retrospective analysis. Wikipedia is not a collection of news articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Aren't these secondary sources, that are used in the article?
• :FedEx MD-11 in Subic Bay overrun | News | Flight Global
• :FEDEX CREW SURVIVES CRASH CARRIER LOSES COURT ROUND | Journal of Commerce Zaptain United (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Ref-talk}}

• Keep WP:N, WP:V [https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa21889/Download/0021889-30032016231349.pdf] [https://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12619903/index.pdf] [https://www.baaa-acro.com/sites/default/files/2024-03/N581FE.pdf] [https://www.faa.gov/lessons_learned/transport_airplane/accidents/TC-GEN] just a mention here. There are some more bits of analysis out there available. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::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)

:

• Comment {{re|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)
• :{{Ping|Mjroots}} Per WP:SECONDARY, {{Tq|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, {{Tq|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)
• ::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)
• :::Not exactly a bizarre nor troubling interpretation. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS: {{Tq2|[...] Most reliable sources in academia name typical contemporary newspaper stories as primary sources.
  Several academic research guides name newspaper articles written at the same time as the event as one kind of primary source.{{efn|See for example:
• :::*{{cite web |last=Knowlton |first=Steven |title=Primary sources: A guide for historians: Introduction |publisher=Princeton University Library |url= http://libguides.princeton.edu/history/primarysources}}
• :::*{{cite web |last=Lee |first=Corliss |title=Finding Historical Primary Sources: Getting Started |publisher=UC Berkeley Libraries |url= http://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/subject-guide/163-Finding-Historical-Primary-Sources}}
• :::*{{cite web |last=Bell |first=Emily |title=Library Research Guide: History of Science: Introduction: What is a Primary Source? |publisher=Harvard University Library |url= http://guides.library.harvard.edu/HistSciInfo/primary}}
• :::}} Yale University's guide to comparative literature lists newspaper articles as both primary and secondary sources, depending on whether they contain an interpretation of primary source material.{{cite web |last=Gilman |first=Todd |title=Comparative Literature: Primary, Secondary & Tertiary Sources |date= |publisher=Yale University Library |url= http://guides.library.yale.edu/c.php?g=295913&p=1975839 |url-status=dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170206192321/http://guides.library.yale.edu/c.php?g=295913&p=1975839 |archive-date=February 6, 2017 |access-date=February 10, 2017}} Other university libraries address newspaper sources in more detail, for instance:
• :::* "[...] A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events".{{cite web |title=Primary, secondary and tertiary sources: Secondary |publisher=James Cook University |website=libguides.jcu.edu.au |location=Queensland, Australia |url= https://libguides.jcu.edu.au/scholarly-sources/secondary |access-date=October 22, 2020}}
• :::* "[...] A recently published journal or newspaper article on the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case would be read as a secondary source, because the author is interpreting an historical event. An article on the case that was published in 1955 could be read as a primary source that reveals how writers were interpreting the decision immediately after it was handed down".{{cite web |title=Primary and Secondary Sources |date= |publisher=Ithaca College Library |url= https://library.ithaca.edu/sp/subjects/primary |url-status=dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170618033127/https://library.ithaca.edu/sp/subjects/primary |archive-date=June 18, 2017 |access-date=June 15, 2017}}
• :::* "Characteristically, primary sources are contemporary to the events and people described[.] [...] In writing a narrative of the political turmoil surrounding the 2000 U.S. presidential election, a researcher will likely tap newspaper reports of that time for factual information on the events. The researcher will use these reports as primary sources because they offer direct or firsthand evidence of the events, as they first took place".{{cite web |last=González |first=Luis A. |title=Identifying Primary and Secondary Sources |date=2014 |publisher=Indiana University Libraries |url= https://guides.libraries.indiana.edu/primarysources |access-date=March 18, 2021}}
• :::* "[...] Traditionally, however, newspapers are considered primary sources. The key, in most cases, is determining the origin of the document and its proximity to the actual event".{{cite web |last=Sanford |first=Emily |title=Primary and Secondary Sources: An Overview |date=2010 |publisher=Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan |url= http://bentley.umich.edu/refhome/primary/ |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110922081941/http://bentley.umich.edu/refhome/primary/ |archive-date=22 September 2011}}}} Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::* 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, [https://crk.umn.edu/library/primary-secondary-and-tertiary-sources#:~:text=Examples%20of%20primary%20sources%3A,interviews%2C%20autobiographies%2C%20and%20correspondence.], or any such guide. The official air accident investigation report is certainly a primary source. {{pb}}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)

• :It seems that you're confusing Wikipedia:Party and person. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 07:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Talk-ref}}

{{Notelist}}

:

• 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)
• Redirect to FedEx Express#Major incidents and accidents. Seems reasonable intermediate option considering previous afd was delete. Not enough for a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep FedEx Express Flight 87 meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline through articles published in international sources at the time of the incident: [https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-commercial-appeal/172679459/ 1], [https://www.newspapers.com/article/birmingham-post-herald/172679469/ 2], [https://aviationweek.com/cockpit-crew-fedex-md-11-suffered-minor-injuries-oct-17 3], [https://iol.co.za/news/world/1999-10-18-two-escape-as-cargo-plane-sinks-into-sea/ 4], [https://www.proquest.com/docview/233936128/ 5], and [https://www.joc.com/fedex-crew-survives-crash-carrier-loses-court-round_19991018.html 6]. In addition to the sources found by SportingFlyer, I found that the incident is still mentioned in sources published years later:

  1. {{cite news |date=2009-03-23 |title=Aircraft profile: MD-11. A look at the history of the MD-11 aircraft and recent incidents. |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2009/3/23/aircraft-profile-md-11 |publisher=Al Jazeera English |accessdate=2025-05-19 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20250519085324/https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2009/3/23/aircraft-profile-md-11 |archivedate=2025-05-19 }}

     The article notes: "October 17, 1999 – Excessive landing speed blamed for crash landing of FedEx MD-11 at Subic Bay International Airport in the Philippines after flight from Shanghai. The aircraft rolled the whole length of the runway before plunging into the bay where it was completely submerged. The two crew escaped with minor injuries."

  2. {{cite news |last=Parry |first=Simon |date=2005-02-06 |title=The chequered, tragic history of the MD-11 |url=https://www.scmp.com/article/488349/chequered-tragic-history-md-11 |newspaper=South China Morning Post |accessdate=2025-05-19 |archiveurl=https://archive.today/2025.05.19-085612/https://www.scmp.com/article/488349/chequered-tragic-history-md-11 |archivedate=2025-05-19 }}

     The article notes: "October 17, 1999: A FedEx MD-11 goes off the end of the runway and sinks in the sea at Subic Bay in the Philippines. The pilots suffer minor injuries."

  3. {{cite news |date=2004-06-08 |title=Collision With Trees on Final Approach: Federal Express Flight 1478 Boeing 727-232, N497FE. Tallahassee, Florida. July 26, 2002 |url=https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR0402.pdf |publisher=National Transportation Safety Board |accessdate=2025-05-19 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20250519090244/https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR0402.pdf |archivedate=2025-05-19 }}

     The report notes: "According to FedExís Flight Operations Training Manual (FOTM) and postaccident interviews with FedEx training personnel, the FAA had approved single-visit training for annual recurrent training of FedEx pilots. However, as a result of some incidents and the October 17, 1999, FedEx accident in Subic Bay, Philippines,81 the company decided that semiannual training was more effective and elected to return to that schedule for its 727, DC-10, MD-11, and A-310 flight crews."

  HilssaMansen19 linked [https://www.baaa-acro.com/sites/default/files/2024-03/N581FE.pdf the accident report] from the Department of Transportation, which is an independent source that provides substantial coverage of the accident. There is enough information to support a standalone article. A redirect to FedEx Express#Major incidents and accidents would result in the loss of encyclopedic content. Cunard (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

  :Sources 1 and 2 here are passing mentions in lists of accidents. Source 3 is a passing mention in an air accident report for a completely different accident. There is no WP:SIGCOV here. We are again in the position that if we accept this kind of coverage as indicative of notability, then all air accidents are, by definition, notable, simply because they all generate reports and will be found in lists and passing mentions. We have no evidence that anyone wrote about this accident beyond the initial event. A single company deciding to tweak its training schedules is not enough for WP:LASTING. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete The entire article is propped up by an incident report published by the Philippine government. Since the incident report isn't secondary, it fails WP:GNG. Therefore, this article's subject isn't notable. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.