Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thai Flying Service Flight 209

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 no consensus‎ and no clear one likely to emerge Star Mississippi 23:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Flying Service Flight 209

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Based on run-of-the-mill aviation accidents, general aviation accidents that resulted in fatalities became common in aviation. While this resulted in nine fatalities and no survivors, though tragic, the accident relates to general aviation. The article doesn't meet the notability for events. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 21:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 21:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 21:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 21:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 21:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:MILL says, "Something that is run-of-the-mill is a common, everyday, ordinary item that does not stand out from the rest." I don't see how that could in any way apply to aircraft accidents. Failure to meet WP:NEVENT would thus be the only valid rationale for deletion. Considering WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in particular, while the initial flurry of news reports died down after 6 September, there's still news coverage from one month after the accident[1] and at three months[2]. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep Does not relate to general aviation, this was an airline-operated flight and is notable because of the oddity of the crash, something mechanical on board definetly failed aboard this crash, just looking at the nature.

We should wait on deleting this until a preliminary report or a final report are released as we have no foundation currently to show this is unnotable. Low fatalities do not determine notability.

@TG-article Lolzer3k 21:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I'm a weak delete - this did generate international news but I don't see any LASTING coverage after a simple BEFORE search. If that can be produced, I'll happily change to keep. SportingFlyer T·C 00:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was an airline flight with fatalities, and It recieved decent coverage. I think anyways we should wait for some kind of report to come out. Signor Pignolini 15:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". None of the sources are secondary in nature since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself, with none of them providing significant or in-depth coverage of the event. I'm not sure what a preliminary/final report could bring other than maybe possible lasting effects, but regardless, we're judging the event's notability on what coverage we currently have, not on what coverage and effects we could possibly have, and as of yet, this event isn't notable enough to warrant a standalone page. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was news at the time and coverage was, for some time and to some extent, WP:LASTING. It's notable and should be kept. Eelipe (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just wondering, doesn't WP:LASTING talk about lasting effects? If so, wouldn't WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE be the correct term? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True. Thank you for the correction, I meant WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE! Eelipe (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•Weak Keep I think we should wait out the delete until we get the preliminary report or the final report on the accident and then we go from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.247.174.146 (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn’t that basically saying that as of yet, the event isn’t notable? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviationwikiflight No, it is saying that we do not have adequete information on the accident quite yet, what they are stating here is that we shouldnt delete articles until it is confirmed that the cause of the accident was minor and was something severe or company-breaking.

Small accidents like these may expose major problems, and looking at the nature of this accident it is definetly a stand-out over the other Cessna Grand Caravan accidents i have seen, CFITS straight into the ground arent common, especially with typically well-maintained and supervised aircraft such as the above. The reason we arent getting a report immediately is because of such nature, the plane practically- no literally disinegrated just like that, no fire or anything. I have voted keep because of what i have just stated above. Lolzer3k 19:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Whatever lasting effect you believe is possible is at this point pure speculation. Nothing of what you said above is grounded in policy nor relevant in determining the event’s notability. We are looking at the sources and as of yet, none of them demonstrate the event’s notability. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable."

This incident is still fairly recent and does not have a verifiable lasting effect determined, which is why i am strongly against the deletion of this article, such incidents are typically notable.

Which yet again is why i would prefer to wait for a preliminary report and or final report to be released on this accident so the "lasting effect" is clear and can be determined easily, And also why i have not reverted the edit adding the notability tag. Best we can do in my view is to wait for a Preliminary report to be issued.

@Aviationwikiflight Lolzer3k 20:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody advocating for a delete has ever mentioned the lack of lasting effects. Your argument is basically stating that "the event isn't notable which is why we should wait until notability might be present" which is simply not how it works. If an event isn't notable, it shouldn't have a standalone page. You've yet to address sourcing issues. It's clear that none of the sources are secondary with none of them providing significant or in-depth coverage of the event. 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. Nothing is giving this accident additional enduring significance. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OP was blocked for disruptive editing and then indef'd for block evasion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Even with few fatalities, the article is based on enough WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can produce significant secondary coverage in reliable sources. Otherwise this is a WP:News article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: run-of-the-mill from an aviation point of view; no coverage beyond the initial news cycle. Usual caveats apply: the article can always be recreated in the unlikely event that this turns out to have enduring significance. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Recusing lost discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know where you are coming from but there was a lot of news around the crash so I think that it is notable enough. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there was news coverage doesn't automatically make the event notable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nobody has demonstrated significant/continuing coverage, probably because there isn't any. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I noted the existence of news coverage after one month (September 2024) and three months (November) in the first comment. There has also been a recent news report, from the day before yesterday, describing the site and the lack of updates from the investigation.[3]. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC), 02:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right. I'll lodge a weak keep in that case. It's not a lot, but there is some continued coverage here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the continued coverage I mentioned above, there's also a recent report on the website of the Honekrasae talk show about ongoing legal issues.[4] --Paul_012 (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2025 (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.