Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Irkutsk Antonov An-12 crash

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buffbills7701 00:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Irkutsk Antonov An-12 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tragic but not notable cargo plane crash. Cargo plane crashes happen much more regularly than commercial flights. ...William 13:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 13:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions...William 13:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions....William 13:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions...William 13:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has some 3rd party sources to prove notability Such as BBC news and Yahoo news. So the artical meets WP:GNG and WP:NNEWS.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No real rationale presented for deletion. Easily meets WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As mentioned above, easily meets WP:GNG. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The trouble with running up the flag of "passes GNG" on incidents like this is that they will, in fact, get a spurt of news coverage immediately after the event - but then nothing more beyond the initial surge of news-agency-release-based articles. There is nothing notable about this accident; it's tragic, but six months from now it'll be like the other thousands of cargo-plane crashes: a line of statistics, and nothing more. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - where is it written that cargo aircraft are less notable than passenger aircraft? I see no evidence that accident rates are significantly higher for them per million flight hours. It's a hull loss of a large commercial aircraft. Accident reports often taake years before they are published, so claims of failing persistence are premature. Mjroots (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Through editing convention, scheduled passenger airline accidents are considered more notable than unscheduled, charter, or cargo flights, and this has long been used, without much dissent, at AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Firstly, all aircraft crashes generate an investigation report, so the (forthcoming) existence of a report does not of itself confer notability. Secondly and more importantly, as The Bushranger says, after a brief flurry of news reports there has been...nothing. Many aircraft crashes generate coverage years after the event - the Tenerife collision, the Air France Concorde, the Aloha Boeing 737, Sullenberger's ride into the Hudson, the DC-10 at Sioux City, Auburn Calloway's in-flight hammer attack on the Fedex crew, the Air France A320 at Habsheim, the de Havilland Comet crashes - I could go on; this is not one of those crashes. News reports do not automatically mean their subject will meet the GNG; if they did I could write an article on every single fatal car crash, aircraft crash and murder; and many of the accidental deaths; in Australia, secure in the knowledge such articles would not be deleted - because they all generate news reports "independent of the subject". YSSYguy (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge somewhere. From my reading of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents, this appears to qualify for inclusion into an article about the airport or company, but not as a separate article. Your reading may differ. Bearian (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not the news. No lasting notability. Stifle (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• '"Keep"'. Large hull loss incidents almost always notableHiobazard (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as passes GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it notable? As The Bushranger and I said above, news stories do not equate to passing the GNG. If that were the case, I could write 2014 Bondi Beach car crash about this accident; after all I have seen the story on the internet (including coverage from Africa [1] [2] and the USA [3]), heard about it on two different radio stations (one of which is national) and seen it reported on three different national television stations' news programs - and I am not in the city where it happened. I could also write an article about this death, which is also receiving news coverage here in Australia. YSSYguy (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(comment by article creator) The car crash and heart attack examples would indeed seem to meet the general notability guideline, as does this topic. However, just meeting the GNG isn't enough: topics that come under the "What Wikipedia is not" policy aren't considered suitable—for example, "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities". I'm not an aviation buff so I wasn't aware that fatal plane crashes with an unknown cause are as commonplace as cricket matches and Hollywood parties. With odds like that, is it unusual that this aircraft lasted 50 years? —rybec 17:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.