Jump to content

Talk:LOT Polish Airlines Flight 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How many crew members?

[edit]

According to press note on the official LOT Polish Airlines website, there were 11 crew members, not 10, link (in Polish): http://www.lot.com/web/lot/press-info/-/asset_publisher/kJ6c/content/komunikat-01-11-2011 82.210.148.225 (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated and added the reference to the LOT press release. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination

[edit]

Fate

[edit]

What about the fate of the aircraft? Was it written off? I don't think so. As stated in Aviation Safety Network (click here), it only sustained minor damages, what makes the entire article to be removed from Wikipedia. I wonder why this reference is not included in the article...--Jetstreamer (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its an intentional exclusion. But I must say I think its highly unlikely that anyone at this point can say its "minor". These things take time to determine, it's only "minor" in the fact that the plane didn't break into many pieces. (BTW don't read this as an endorsement for the article, I'm still on the fence.) Ravendrop 15:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fate is not clear at the moment. Yet, there are articles for many emergency landings where the a/c was repaired and returned into service - Air Transat 236 for example. Any other reasons for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.72.244.235 (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps those articles should be deleted too. WP:AIRLINE guidelines states that an accident is worth including only if a hull-loss, a deadly accident, or an event that changed the procedures occurred. Neither of them is fulfilled here. And let me tell you that there were indeed changes to procedures after Air Transat Flight 236. Which procedure changed following the LOT event?.--Jetstreamer (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your AfD for this article was rejected by a significant majority of the responding editors. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean anything.--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is to early to make any judgments on whether the incident changes any procedures or not. Once the investigation is concluded and a report is released then this can be judged. If the final report does not bring about change then the article should be deleted until then there is no reason to as the article gives links to information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.209.165.98 (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial deletions of sourced material

[edit]

I suggest the two editors who keep deleting sourced material please discuss it here prior to them starting a revert war. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I believe since two authors (myself and another) have removed the material you (and only you) have added (and have given reasons as to why that material should not be in the article) the onus should actually be on you to demonstrate why that material is notable and to gain consensus for its inclusion.
Incorrect, you have been deleting the work of at least 3-4 editors including Lysy and myself. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I will explain my reasoning:
A) The crew listing is not notable. Yes it was an impressive piece of piloting, but the pilot and co-pilot are already mentioned under the "accident" section and there is no need to mention them again. All other crew are simply not notable. They did not do anything remarkable, they did not cause the incident, and nothing is being written about them.
Other air incidents have the crew mentioned. It is just as important to manage the welfare of the passengers by the cabin crew. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Other air incidents have the crew mentioned". Example, please. If it is provided, I agree with you. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
B) The see also that are being added are not similar incidents, and thus befoul see also guidelines for what should be included. US Airways Flight 1549 was a bird strike incident that led to a landing on the Hudson River. It was not a gear failure, but an engine failure. Secondly, Air Transat Flight 236 was a fuel exhaustion that forced the plane to glide to an airport where it landed with its gear deployed.
They are all belly landings. Please note, I was not the author that added this section, so your earlier citation of me being the single author is specious. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"see also" should be kept as small as possible; best articles should have next to none. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
C) Thirdly, there is no reason to link to dozens of images/videos of the incident. We already have one on the page, and if an appropriate link to a single agreeable video source can be found, then that can alone can be linked in an external links section. If people want to search for images they can do so in hundreds of other ways. The page is at risk of being hijacked for promotional purposes. (see also WP:Linkfarm.)
I think there are enough editors watching and working on the article to prevent the page being used for promotional purposes. Give the rest of us some credit. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find the external media template an interesting and worthwile addition. If somebodu disagrees, I'd suggest TfDing the template, or starting a MoS discussion on how extensive is it should be, rather than fighting over it here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think thats it, let me know if I missed something. Ravendrop 21:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am also been accused of wholesale deletions of referenced material, the fact that it is referenced doesnt make it suitable for the article. Stuff has been removed by more than one editor it is a sign that it doesnt belong so adding it all back in again doesnt really help. It is fairly standard for editors to come along and tidy up articles, all of the recent deletions have had edit summaries but as you need an explanation (and apology to repeat some of Ravendrop's points):

  • Image of the pilot is not free and should not be used just to provide an illustration. We dont need a non-free image to know who the pilot it was not taken at the time of the incident so is purely decoration. Also we already have one non-free image in the article.
One image per article? Are you serious? Where is that in the MOS (which is a guideline, not a bible). There is an ongoing discussion of the image of the Captain on the family providing freely the image to multiple sources in the media. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph about videos being available is just guff, this is an encyclopedia not an extension of youtube or social site. A lot of modern accidents are filmed and photographed it just is not notable.
I wasn't the editor that wrote that article, so yet again you make my point. Again, only one image is allowed? Considering this is the first-of-its-kind incident, I think a few videos from multiple perspectives is relevant. The US Airways flight has a number of relevant videos. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The crew list as per Ravendrop.
My counter arguments are listed above.Ajh1492 (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • and had undergone "full maintenance" in March 2011 has been added back - need to explain why that is relevant or at least what does it mean. Probably that some undefined maintenance was carried out March, the term "full maintenance" has no meaning in aviation and if maintenance is relevant to the accident then that will come out later, so apart from being nonsense it has POV issues.
Again, I am not the author of that passage, but it was provided by another editor. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also after your revert a load of external links were added which dont add any value to the article, external links should add value not just provide links that can be found with google.
As I mentioned earlier

So unless we get consensus to keep this stuff I would suggest that we remove the external links and revert User:Ajh1492 reversion of mine and Ravendrops changes, thanks.MilborneOne (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2011 (UT

  • You both are the only editors doing wholesale deletions of sections of the article. Why don't you just have a little patience and allow the editors who are fluent in Polish to translate pertinent information from the source articles before you nit-pick the article. I suggest that editors associated with WikiProject Aviation please step back for a little while so as to let the Polish speakers from WikiProject Poland continue to translate relevant information from the hundreds of articles being written in the Polish media. We are doing our best to put relevant, factual information out on the page. We've been translating non-stop since the event occurred. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is also the reason to leave the CURRENT EVENT tag on the article. The event just doesn't stop when the plane comes to a halt - everything has to be cleaned up and investigated. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support the versions with the material deleted, and have reverted to that version. Also, the Current events tag isn't meant to be a general disclaimer, and is only to be used on articles with several hundred edits a day, which this one is not. I suggets the Polish speakers steps back foor a while, and let the more-experienced editors from WikiProject Aviation deal with adding info to the article for a while. Newly-translated info can be added here on the talk page for consideration. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you "own" the article? Can you translate Polish into English? Are you going to go to the primary sources and translate the information? All I am saying is let those of us who know BOTH languages translate the information into English before you swing the beeching axe on the article. Not every article needs to fit into your WP Aviation worldview - those are style GUIDELINES. Considering it was the first reaction from your group to RfD the ENTIRE ARTICLE. Ajh1492 (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody "owns" the article - not us, and not you. In addition, the style "guidelines" are in fact guidelines...which are pretty hefty stuff on Wikipedia, only one notch below policy. Regardless, you're getting into an edit war - please discuss what is to be kept here BEFORE reverting. Thank you. I shuld also point out that Youtube and photographs from Airliners.net are not reliable sources. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, BilCat, please explain why do you think you need to delete each item before you actually do it. (and yes, I consider myself an experienced editor ;) Thanks for your consideration. --Lysytalk 07:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've considered it, and rejected it. The reasons have been discussed above already, and and are supported by the WPAVITION style guide or WPMOS. -BilCat (talk) 07:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lysy, Ajh1492 - please discuss what's to be added back to the article before reverting it back into the article. Thank you. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

As mentioned above, the linked accidents have no commonality with LOT Flight 16. US Airways Flight 1549 is a "dual engine failure due to foreign object ingestion" accident and Air Transat Flight 236 is a "fuel starvation due to leakage" induced accident. Except the fact that there were no fatalities, there are no commonalities with the mentioned accidents at all. The root cause of LOT Flight 16 accident is at this time officially unresolved, although disjoint pieces of information are leaking through, the formal report (one to be considered as definitive) is still some time away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliusAV (talk • contribs) 01:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Alright that sounds good, I support the deletion.Meatsgains (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To the unsigned commenter - I'm not the editor that added the links, but the three are belly landings of wide-body aircraft with mechanical failures in which all the passengers survived. Sounds like a commonality to me... Ajh1492 (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually according to the article, Air Transat Flight 236 was not a belly landing and there was no mechanical failure. It was an unpowered gear-down landing short of it's intended destination following a glide from altitude after losing all engine power due to a fuel leak, there were two serious and numerous minor injuries; this accident was a powered, gear-up landing at the intended destination following an apparent mechanical failure related to the landing gear, there were no injuries. The only commonalities are that the planes flew west to east across the Atlantic and made emergency landings where nobody was killed - not factors relevant to the notability. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I was trying, yet unfruitfully, to change the mind of those who still believe this is a notable event. The article was voted to be kept. Where were you when the poll took place?--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was most likely offline, but I didn't have this article on my watchlist until after the AfD closed so I may not have spotted it. However I would have recommended keeping the article had I been in a position to contribute to the discussion. Belly landings of airlines are rare events (the Belly landing article lists only one other, and that a more minor incident), incidents on LOT Polish Airlines are rare post the modernisation begun in 1989, and incidents that close a major international airport (it's the most important airport in Poland) for 2 days are also very rare. These factors combined with the media coverage clearly indicate to me that this is a notable incident. My point above is only that it is not similar to the Air Transat flight, which is notable for entirely different reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tadeusz Wrona is notable

[edit]

His article should be translated from pl wiki: pl:Tadeusz Wrona (pilot). If anybody doubts, just check Chesley Sullenberger. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have an opinion about notability of Tadeusz Wrona but really his actions dont compare with those of Chesley Sullenberger. MilborneOne (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At least some disagree (here is one source making that comparison]). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Based on the Google translations of the Polish Wikipedia article and a couple of the sources that article uses, I don't think there is enough there to sustain an article that would pass the guidelines around people notable only for one event. All the article seems to contain is a brief bit about his family background, the fact that he won the diamond badge for gliding, that he (and others) attribute his experience and skill with landing gliders as the reason for the successful landing on this occasion, and that he was congratulated by the president over the phone. The president apparently said that he should be "honoured", but it's unclear to me whether this means just public commendation for his actions or something more formal (a state honour perhaps). There looks to be sufficient coverage related to his gliding activity and award and the connection between that and the landing of flight 016 for a section in this article - indeed I would encourage such a section. This is all based on machine translations from a language I can't speak or read, but if you feel differently you do need to address WP:1E in particular. Thryduulf (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stubbed it, Tadeusz Wrona (aviator). For chrissake we have an article on Rebecca Black.  Volunteer Marek  23:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged images as violating the NFCC, and was going to simply remove the image of Wrona from the article when I noticed the blue link. I was about to take it to AfD, but luckily I checked the history as it was created by an editor with whom I am currently banned from interacting with, and them with me. I won't take it to AfD myself, but Wrona is a classic WP:BLP1E case. He is only notable for this single incident. There is no other notability. Any information on Wrona should be merged into this article, where it is vaguely relevant information, but I am not going to touch that article due to different issues. Would another editor like to instigate the merge discussion in relation to the Wrona article? On a side note, I am in touch with Polish photographers and am trying to get images under a free licence so we can use on Commons. If I am successful, I will place the image (that should be deleted) that is now in the infobox. Russavia Let's dialogue 17:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Result was do not merge. The discussion itself did not reach clear consensus, but opinions seem to have changed after he was awarded the Order of Polonia Restituta on 7 November (a strong argument for individual notability), leading to the conclusion that the consensus is to keep the two articles. Orlady (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above discussion and WP:BLP1E, I can't see how at this point in time Tadeusz Wrona (aviator) has notability independent of this flight. As such I propose merging that article into this one, where the limited amount of encyclopaedic information can be presented in context. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When the practical purpose of this supposed merge is to delete an article, for all practical intents and purposes - while circumventing the standard AfD procedures - then ... your comment is irrelevant. It's hard to avoid the feeling that there is some partisan motives going on here and that at the same time some people know that a proper AfD of Tadeusz Wrona will likely fail. So they're trying to get around it by proposing these "mergers".
Anyway. Why is this being discussed here? There is an article talk page where this should be dealt with. Take it over there. Volunteer Marek  01:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? It is one of the places for it. And I do not support the merge, as I see his notability as high as those of some other mentioned figures. Only he is not American... gee. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 02:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it is one of the *possible* places to discuss it but it is not the *optimal* place to discuss it. The article and the talk page for the guy himself is over that way --> Tadeusz Wrona (aviator). Volunteer Marek  02:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) For the record, I started this discussion here because I followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing a merge, the first step of which begins

"Make the proposal on the proposed destination article's discussion page. For example, if Foo is proposed to be merged into Bar, make a proposal to merge Foo into Bar in a new section at Talk:Bar." [emphasis per original]

So this page, as the talk page of the proposed target, would seem to be the optimum place to discuss the proposed merger according to community consensus. There is also benefit in keeping this discussion with the prior discussion above - at the time of the nomination Talk:Tadeusz Wrona (aviator) contained only project banners, so this was most likely to be the more watched page. Per the procedure, the proposal was advertised on both source and target articles. I did not give talk page notifications because the only significant contributors to the article at the time were extremely likely to have both it and this article on their watchlists.
I did not start an AfD because I do not want to delete the article, we should have coverage of him, I just feel that because he is currently notable for only this one event that, per the section "People only notable for one event" of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living people policy, that this article is the best place to have such coverage - i.e. the biography article should be merged into the event article. I thus proposed a merge, following the procedure outlined at WP:MERGE.
Some assumption of good faith would also be nice - the nationality of the subject is not at all relevant for example. While he is being compared to Chesley Sullenberger, Wrona is a pilot known only for this one landing while from the lead of his article Sullenberger in addition to being a pilot known for one successful emergency landing is an international speaker on airline safety, has developed new protocols for airline safety, co-chairman of a notable international youth program run by a notable organisation, an on-air aviation expert for a notable media organisation and was ranked second in TIME Magazine's Top 100 Most Influential Heroes and Icons of 2009. While Wrona may in time become all of these things, he is not currently and WP:CRYSTAL notes that we should assess notability based on present day facts rather than speculate about future possibilities. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand your rationale. Still, I think that if this discussion was taking place at an AfD it would benefit from a broader spectrum of views and opinions, not just those limited to WikiProject AVIATION and WikiProject Poland people. Volunteer Marek  20:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More input is always good. If you (or anyone else) knows of anywhere suitable to advertise this discussion to attract a broader spectrum of views, then please place a neutrally-worded advert there (perhaps something like "It has been proposed that Tadeusz Wrona (aviator) be merged into the article LOT Polish Airlines Flight 16. Your comments would be welcomed in the discussion at Talk:LOT Polish Airlines Flight 16#Merge proposal."), but do (re)read WP:CANVAS first. I always consider it best practice to add links from this discussion to any advertising notes you leave. Thryduulf (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did put a notice at WPP:Poland [1]. The thing is that I can't think of any other projects/spaces which are directly relevant here. But that doesn't mean that input from others, even people who "just walked in off the street", wouldn't be useful. Volunteer Marek  21:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As somebody has noted above, is having the Diamond Badge in gliding notable? Also, the Polish President did annouce an intention of issuing some unspecified national awards. Of course, what and if, at this point, is crystallish, but I'd expect something sooner rather than later. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The diamond badge is worth mentioning, as there is comment that his gliding experience is relevant to his handling of this landing, but as all the biographies that contain both "gliding" and "diamond badge" also have other significant claims to notability it would seem not to confer any notability in and of itself; so especially as all the coverage about him, and all references to gliding, are in relation to this single incident it's still a firm WP:BLP1E. As whatever award he is to be given (and it might not even be the equivalent of an MBE) will be for his actions in landing flight 16 the only reason that this would make a stand alone biography appropriate would be if all recipients of the award are considered notable enough for an individual article just for receiving the award. Until it is actually announced what he's being awarded with it's not just "craystallish" but clear-cut WP:CRYSTAL. Thryduulf (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, yes, but the situation is likely to resolve itself in the immediate, rather than a far-off future, so within a week or so we'll probably know what the award is and more details are likely to emerge. So I don't see a need to hurry this through. Hmm, since *merge* requests can sit around for years (I can still find some I tagged like three years ago) and AfDs are closed within seven days, maybe it is better to have this as a merge discussion ;). Volunteer Marek  21:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, the most likely award Wrona will receive is the Cross of Merit (yes, yes, I know, CRYSTAL), unless they make up a new one or something (which would really up the notability). I don't know if the notability of people who have received it is discussed anywhere on en-wiki. Volunteer Marek  21:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. As per my reasoning above. If Wrona is given the highest civilian honour in Poland (or any other country) -- one which is at the level of say Hero of Russia (except being the Polish equivalent), then he will likely get notability from the highest civlian honour a nation has, but this is pure WP:CRYSTAL conjecture on my part. Outside of LOT Polish Airlines Flight 016 he doesn't have any other notability. That other stuff might exist isn't really all that relevant, but if editors feel that other articles shouldn't exist, then discussion can occur on their pages independently of this discussion. Russavia Let's dialogue 10:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, Wikipedia:Notability_(people) states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times."  Volunteer Marek  19:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed ([4]). Can we speedy close this now? Wrona article should be added to the DYK here, btw. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf, above you said "As whatever award he is to be given (and it might not even be the equivalent of an MBE) will be for his actions in landing flight 16 the only reason that this would make a stand alone biography appropriate would be if all recipients of the award are considered notable enough for an individual article just for receiving the award." - which is in fact the case here. Volunteer Marek  21:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
40000 awards for a 20 year period is rather large number for such a country as Poland. If you suggest to write an article on every person who received any grade of that Order, this might constitute some 0.1% of present Polish population. In fact, I have no big problem with such an approach personally, but I'm not sure that the present level of Wikipedia development and the present guidelines would allow this. GreyHood Talk 23:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is since 1990 or so. However, note that there's a particular reason for that: after the fall of communism they gave the award to a lot of people who had deserved it previously but who, for political reasons, had been omitted under communism. So you see a big spike in the first half of the 90's in giving out of the award, then you see it level off. Note that the # of awards given out under Walesa's succesor, Kwasniewski, is about half of what Walesa gave out. Then it goes back up a bit, then under Kaczynski it comes down again. In 2011 there had been about 930 total of OPRs given and 225 OPRs specifically of this kind. Most of that 40000 is frontloaded from the early 90's when they were trying to make up for time lost under communism and recognizing people who had previously been passed over.
As a second issue, I think this again illustrates why it would be best to have more input from outside just WPP:Aviation and WPP:Poland - here, bringing in the Awards people. Volunteer Marek  00:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if such emergency landings are "much extraordinary" or not, though I seriously doubt they are a routine response. What matters however is if they are perceived as extraordinary by sources - and there's in doubt that this one is. Volunteer Marek  22:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I traced the event with interest and appreciate what Wrona did, pilots are normally taught how to deal with landing gear failures and in all cases I've read all persons aboard survived: Malév Flight 262, ContactAir Fokker-100, Jet Blue Airlines flight 292, DHC-8, Boeing 737-2 K9, McDonnell Douglas MD-90-30 and ATR-42-500. In this sense Wrona's notability isn't sufficient for a standalone article, but he certainly deserved a separate mention in the LOT's Flight 16. Brandmeister t 00:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I have to point out that what matters is not your personal opinion of whether this event was special or not, but how it is covered in the sources. And these seem to disagree. Volunteer Marek  00:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Well, I see that many aviation fans here don't consider the pilot to be particularly notable, and WP:BLP1E seems to be quite relevant, but the amount of media attention, the comments by Chesley Sullenberger who is an obvious comparison target, the state award of a higher level, the existence of tons of biography articles with far less notability, all that convinces me that there would be no harm to Wikipedia if we have a separate article on Wrona. And really, even if it was not that difficult technically, he still saved some 200 people. GreyHood Talk 22:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The way that I see it Greyhood is like this. Merging the article is not deletion of material, because a redirect can still be left in place. It is simply placing material in the appropriate place, where it is not only relevant, but where it can conform to our long-standing standards, WP:BLP1E being one of those. In a stand alone article, there isn't much more than a few lines that could be devoted to the individual, but being placed in this article not only does this article justice, but also the individual. As you noted above, some 11,000 people have received the 4th grade (not the highest grade) of that honour since Walesa's days, so we can't really say that all 11,000 of those individuals are going to be notable. I know you are an inclusionist, but having a separate article isn't going to allow it to grow past anything of a stub, given that the belly landing occurred, and he has now gotten an award for it --- give it another day or two, and he as an individual will fall out of public eye, and there will be nothing more to be written -- but the incident however, will continue get coverage due to investigations and the like. That's the angle that I see it from. Russavia Let's dialogue 01:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • From the point of view of creating better developed integrated articles and not stubs you are right (though I believe in the particular case the article has a certain potential to develop). But from the point of view of Wikipedia navigation and information search having a separate article is convenient in several ways. We can't assign categories such as Category:Recipients of the Order of Polonia Restituta or Category:Polish pilots to the article about the flight. Of course, we can assign those categories to the redirect page after merging, but such things inflate the categories and WikiProject-related statistics. A long work with categories and WP:RUSSIA convinced me that having separate articles often makes sense (for example, many articles on Olympic Champions have no any potential to grow beyound stubs, but it is more convenient to have them separate and not merge with particular Olympic Games or Olympic events articles). Also a separate article seems to make the information more easily findable via the Google Search. GreyHood Talk 08:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Working backwards---the separate title won't affect Google search results in any great way. But we need to remember that we aren't here to promote Wikipedia via Google, but rather the writing of an encyclopaedia. You mentioned Olympic champions -- I would disagree with that assessment -- being an Olympic champion is often the pinnacle/high point of one's sporting career, and such an achievement is more often than not gotten thru years and years of hard work, and rising thru the ranks, from juniors. And along the way, they are reported on; take Ian Thorpe as an example -- his career was followed to such an extent that everyone knew who he was before becoming an Olympic champion --- thru his juniors success, success in World Swimming Championships, Commonwealth Games, and numerous other notable, and international, sporting events. In this instance, before the aircraft belly-landed in Warsaw, no-one knew who Wrona was -- his was basically an unknown even in his own country. His notability hasn't been established over the many years of his unnotable career, but rather as a result of this one event. The notability is with the event, not the "15 minute of fame" pilot. And I don't say that in a disparaging way of course. Russavia Let's dialogue 11:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was speaking about the competitors and Champions of early Olympics, such as before WWI. Often we know virtually nothing about them, and the articles have no real potential to grow beyond stubs, and the situation is similar with many sport persons in fact. Still by default there should be an article on every Olympic Champion or even on every Olympic competitor, even if they were known and are known just by one event in their lives. GreyHood Talk 18:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note two more things which are relevant, though not necessarily decisive; 1) His daughter, Natalia, may also be notable as she is apparently a five time champion of Poland in Eventing and 2) the Wrona article on pl-wiki was subject of an AfD there [5] and the result was a pretty overwhelming keep. I fully realize that we don't need to mimic what other wikis do, but if anything, the pl-wiki standards for inclusion and notability are stricter than on en-wiki. So these two aspects are indicative of notability. Volunteer Marek  01:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know anything about pl wiki, and in any case what another project does is irrelevant - on the English Wikipedia we judge cases according to English Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP1E; and in this case everything notable about Wrona is due to this incident so the articles should be merged - much of what is on Wrona's article duplicates what is here and much of the rest should be (even if there is a standalone article). Regarding his daughter, see WP:NOTINHERITED - her notability is irrelevant to his. Thryduulf (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Thryduulf, as I already said above, these two things are not decisive just informative. You, and others, can take what they want from them. However, as far as much of what is on Wrona's article duplicates what is here goes that's just not true. There's plainly enough information in the Wrona article which is not here and which is enough for it to be a stand alone, non-stub, article. Volunteer Marek  02:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you said they were "relevant", but neither of them are. The comment about pl.wiki is potentially usfully informational, the comment about his daughter is not. Going through Wrona's article point by point:
  • "Tadeusz Wrona (born 1958 in Żywiec[1]) is a Polish pilot." - Not in Flight 16 article and shouldn't be if there is no merge
  • "On November 1, 2011..." - all of paragraph in Flight 16 article.
  • "A video of the landing was broadcast..." should be in the Flight 16 article
  • Described as a hero, state awards - partly in the Flight 16 article, should probably all be there regardless.
  • Downplayed his role - not in Flight 16, probably should be regardless
  • Fan websites, puns on name - not really very significant, possibly wouldn't be included in a bio if there was sufficient other info. Definitely not suitable for a standalone Flight 16 article.
  • Diamond badge - not in Flight 16 article, debateable whether it is relevant to a non-merged article but possibly is.
  • Comparison to Sullenberger - partly in Flight 16 article, partly not in bio article. Should all be in both.
  • Co-pilot's award - should be in Flight 16 article, should not be in bio article.
  • Personal life - not in Flight 16 and shouldn't be in a non-merged Flight article.
So as I said earlier, there is a significant duplication and much of what isn't on the Flight article should be (I'll add it if I get time later) - everything points towards merge being the best option. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is some overlap. But things like personal life, his background etc. are obviously specific to Wrona, not the Flight. This kind of thing happens with a lot of notable people. For example Rebecca Black, aside from personal life and some background (some WP:CRYSTAL, or self-published stuff) is covered in Friday (Rebecca Black song). And speaking of Rebecca Black, at her AfD the most common argument was that she had notability independent of her song because ... her song charted. This is roughly analogous to the fact here that Wrona received the Polonia Restituta award for his landing of the flight. Yes, yes, I know "Otherstuff", but seriously, this is exactly the kind of thing which illustrates how fundamentally whacked Wikipedia is (even ignoring the usual petty personal vendettas that drive these things).21:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Volunteer Marek 
This is not AfD, Wrona is not a pop singer and straw men will not win you a discussion. What is being proposed is a merge, because the notability of Wrona is inextricably linked to the flight - the small amount of relevant personal information will be added to a section on this article. As for personal vendettas, as far as I can see you are the only one attempting to bring ad hominems to the table; other people are discussing things based on the facts of the articles and sources. Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only possible ad hominem I made is in regard to another users inappropriate use of sarcasm above (which most definitely was NOT an instance of someone "discussing things based on the facts of the articles and sources". And yes, context of a discussion matters. As does general practice on Wikipedia (particularly since policies are supposed to embody best practice), which makes analogous instances relevant. Volunteer Marek  22:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Analogous instances are relevant, but the Rebecca Black AfD you quote is not analogous - it was an AfD not a merge proposal, and there are frequently applied guidelines and much precedent regarding pop singers and their musical recordings. Those guidelines are not relevant to people who are not pop singers who have not released charting musical recordings. The only similar case to this I am aware of is Chelsey Sullenberger, and I've explained in detail elsewhere in this discussion why the two men have very different levels of notability. This leaves us with only the general notability guideline and the WP:BLP1E policy - both of which point firmly towards a merge. As for the ad hominems, I offer you a partial apology - there were two comments in particular I was thinking of, your accusation regarding personal vendettas; and an earlier remark insinuating that racism was a motivating factor, but looking again I misread and those were Prokonsul Piotrus' words not yours (probably a combination of the relevant position of your very differently prominent signatures). Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is a pretty accurate assessment Thryduulf. It does show that the notability is basically inherited from this particular incident, and given the substantial overlap, the content clearly belongs in this article. Russavia Let's dialogue 11:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AfD at Polish Wikipedia closed as keep

[edit]

Through I know that what one project does is not binding for another one, editors may find the discussion at pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2011:11:02:Tadeusz Wrona (pilot) interesting. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not only are other Wikipedia's decisions not binding on en.wp, they're not relevant other than as potential pointers to third party information that we can use to inform our own decisions based on our own policies. Looking at that discussion through the imperfect filter of google translate, almost all those wanting to keep the article do so for reasons like "this was the first ever such landing", "Chelsey Sullenberger is notable", "if the landing was in New York there would be articles in 5 languages already" and "Wikipedia should have articles on everything". Show me some actual reasons why Wrona is notable independently of this event and I'll endorse a stand-alone biography, until such time I have to repeat that the WP:BLP1E policy calls for a merge. I'm still not convinced you understand that I am not arguing for deletion, but a merger, and that the two are not the same thing. Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're confusing your Polish people again. I'm the one who compared the merge to an AfD, Piotrus hasn't. Volunteer Marek  23:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo removed

[edit]

I have removed the photo of Wrona from both this article and his article, as it does not conform with WP:NFCC -- he is a living individual and as such it is possible to find a free replacement. Photos of living individuals may only be used on fair use on a very rare basis -- the photo was only being used for decoration; it wasn't subjected to critical commentary. It's a copyright violation to be kept in this article and the current separate BIO article Russavia Let's dialogue 11:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No valid non-free use rationale was added in the 10 days since it was tagged, so I've deleted it per WP:CSD#F7. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation details

[edit]

I have added investigation details as of 1st of December, 2011. →εϻαdιν ΤαΙk Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 11:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on LOT Polish Airlines Flight 16. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:LOT_Polish_Airlines_Flight_16&oldid=1199466402"