Talk:1977 Aviateca Convair 240 crash

message: This flight had no flight number, or is it that one isn't available? -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 20:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flight Numbers

message: The article 1977 Aviateca Convair 240 crash‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
The article claims 28 fatalities but the only source cited in the article Aviation Safety Network indicates no fatalities. Other aviation websites (planecrashinfo.com and [airdisaster.com are both in error. Flight International (at flightglobal.com) indicates that there were no fatalities reported at the time of the accident. Furthermore, the accident in question is not listed in a summary of 1977 fatal accidents while it is listed in a summary of non-fatal accidents.--Godot13 (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the prod as it is not really a valid reason for deletion. If they are conflicting claims on the number fatalities etc then we need to look at them and see what is going on. MilborneOne (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, which is why I prepared the statement above. It seems clear that the information was incorrectly copied from the source cited thus what was relied upon for the creation of the article was not conflicting but rather copied incorrectly. Since the correction of this fact then changes at least one of the two possible grounds supporting Wikipedia:Aircrash Wikipedia:Notability (i.e., fatality), on first glance there does not appear to be reliable detailed information to describe the extent of the aircraft's hull damage and thus the article would fail to meet the aviation notability requirements. Several external web-based resources appear to have created entries or articles shortly after this one was published. It is possible that is one reason there is conflicting information out there. Given the notability issue, it did not seem like something that could be fixed (thus the PROD). Should you come to the same conclusion, my suggestion, however, is not necessarily AfD but rather a rewrite making the central focus of the article a retraction since it may be a root of conflicting internet-based information. Barring that, it should probably go to AfD-Godot13 (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The source I added is from the UK Civil Aviation Authority which is copied from the ICAO accident summary report which incidently also says Damage to Aircraft: Destroyed. We have no idea why the 28 fatalities were removed from the ASN article other than it happened between 2007 and 2012, it clearly said 28 died when this article was created in 2006. MilborneOne (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please point out how you can conclude that the ASN data was altered since the writing of this article (as opposed to possibly and inadvertently misinterpreted)? In any event, it doesn't say that now and there are original source supports from contemporary publications as to the absence of fatalities in this accident. If the focal point of the article is to be hull damage (versus fatalities) I hope the newly added source provides more information that simply "Destroyed."--Godot13 (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wayback Machine is your friend http://web.archive.org/web/20070201000000*/http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19770427-0 and I am not sure what can be clearer than destroyed. MilborneOne (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

text: *Obviously destroyed is quite clear. What I meant (and may not have clearly conveyed) was if the notability of the article rests solely on the destruction of the aircraft, should there be more detail than simply stating destroyed, or is that considered sufficient? Also, the Wayback Machine is not providing any earlier versions of the ASN webpage (unless I am not able to see that function).--Godot13 (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: When I used the wayback machine a few hours ago it clearly shows a number of pre-2007 versions with 28 fatalaties. Perhaps start with the home page at http://archive.org/web/web.php MilborneOne (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Click on 28 November on the linked page - this brings up the old version (at least for me) which contains the 28 killed figure. As for whether the accident is notable if not fatal, it probably meets WP:AIRCRASH as a hull loss of a decent sized commercial airliner, but without sources that give more comprehensive coverage (compared to a very small paragraph or an entry in a list, as we have now), it may struggle to meet WP:GNG. What would happen if the article went to Afd is a coin toss.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Very cool tool... Thanks for the instruction. So it's possible that someone over at ASN realized the error (or at least that there is conflicting information).-Godot13 (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Just for info I have asked at the project Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force if anybody else has anything on this accident. MilborneOne (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the CAA report list the number of casualties? If it does state that 28 died, then there does appear to be a problem, as we have a source that would usually be considered cast iron (i.e. the CAA report) saying one thing and contemporary press reports (i.e. Flight International) saying another. I don't suppose the Guatamalan authorities publish old accident reports online?Nigel Ish (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: From here, it appears that Guatamala does not have online records of the accident investigation.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The UK CAA report says Total on Board: 28   - Injury to Occupants F(atal): Crew 6 Pass 22, Serious: Crew 0 Pass 0, Minor or Not injured: Crew 0 Pass 0. The CAA report references the ICAO Summary 8/81. It could be a mistake so we really need another reliable reference. MilborneOne (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have sent an email to the seven contact addresses on the Guatemalan CAA website stating that there appears to be a discrepancy in reports regarding fatalities in this case and asking for clarification based on the original accident report. If I receive a response it will be posted here.--Godot13 (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that Godot13 interested to hear if you get a reply. MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

text: It appears in the non-fatal list of accident in Flight 21 January 1978, injuries as nil but no figures for crew or passengers and the circumstances says "No details". MilborneOne (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the page - "Non fatal accidents: scheduled flights" GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[1977 Aviateca Convair 240 crash‎]] 

message: I did hear back, but I think my request was not understood. This is what I sent:
*To whom it may concern-I am trying to clarify some conflicting information about an aircraft accident that occurred on April 27th, 1977 near Guatemala City (subject of email: Clarification: 1977 Aviateca Convair 240 crash (near Guatemala City). According to many internet sites, there were 28 people killed in this accident. However, according to published paper journals printed in 1977, there were NO deaths. Do you have access to the DGAC accident report? If so, can you please clarify the findings? If you require any additional information please let me know. Many thanks in advance for any help you might be able to offer.
This is what I received today: "Please if you have any information about the accident in that time, please call" (and a main number with several extensions was attached). I'd like to send one more email, but I think it should be in Spanish (which I don't know). If anyone is interested in drafting a short follow-up email I will send it, otherwise I'll just let this one go...Godot13 (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempted correspondence with [http://www.dgac.gob.gt Guatemalan CAA]