Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 IAF Sikorsky CH-53 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 no consensus. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 23:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2010 IAF Sikorsky CH-53 crash[edit]

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

Fails WP:AIRCRASH for military incidents. WP:NOTNEWS also. News coverage is routine. Article was AFD, the article was recreated and padded with duplicate links, listing the people who killed. Notability hasn't changed since the last AFD.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC) ...William 17:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The editor has tried to get it speedily deleted, that did not work. I explained the article has significantly changed since its previous AfD, but that wasn't paid attention to. Still, the admin who rejected the speedy deletion said specifically that the article has significantly changed. It's not correct to simply say that only a list of the people who were killed was added to this article, that's not true at all. Articles from 2011 and 2012 were added, which shows ongoing coverage, as well as the results of an official state investigation and the impact it has had. Its previous AfD was a very very close vote as well - and now, the article has significantly changed, is notable, shows ongoing coverage, is properly referenced, and should remain.

The editor above lies. Not one single citation from 2012 is in the article. The only 2012 news he can produce that is remotely connected to this crash is the sikorskys being put back into service by Israel. WP:ROUTINE covers that. If they were taken out of service, they will be placed back into or announced they aren't being used again. Also he doesn't understand AFDs very well. They aren't counts.

As for what was done to the article since the AFd

The listing of those killed in the crash. Crash articles aren't memorials and this was removed from the article[1]

Multiple links to the same articles, namely IC being placed in the external links or further reading sections. I count this being done at least seven times. 4 of which were removed per WP:ELRC.

I can do an indepth study of what changes were done to the article between last January and this August which have no bearings on notability. It will be an extensive study. Is anyone interested?...William 12:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While perhaps unrelated to the AfD, as part of an attempt to get this article deleted, WilliamJE edit-warred and was blocked for 24 hours [and then attacked the blocking admins and admins in general], if that's any indication about the state of this AfD...

Oh and the blocking editor admits to have done the block because he assumed[2] rather than check out your lies. Applying WP:ELRC isn't edit warring....William 12:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't waste your time, any editors who want to see the significant changes made can just look at what the article was when it was deleted here. If you think that just a list of those who were killed and "multiple links to the same articles" was all that was added, then that's rather disturbing. --Activism1234 00:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To sum up - article is properly referenced throughout, has undergone significant changes, is notable and has had a lasting impact which has continued into 2012, and fits WP:GNG. --Activism1234 18:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as an WP:EVENT article, it appears that the editors at the article have show that the subject has passed WP:EFFECT, and meets WP:GNG. That being said, it could be argued that the coverage for this event is routine or that EFFECT was only temporary and thus this article maybe subject to future summarization and merger to an appropriate article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added 90% of the significant information to 118 Squadron (Israel) after the last time this was listed. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, as stated before this article was in a much different state and there's a lot more info now, so now I don't think that level of detail is necessary on that article. It's 1 incident constituting 90% of the article on a squadron. I'd suggest trimming it down significantly, but would rather see what the result of this AfD is first. --Activism1234 21:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the squadron article. As this was a military incident, while tragic, it is not notable; military aircraft crash fairly often, alas. This is a run-of-the-mill military accident. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Civilian aircraft also crash "frequently," but we still have articles on them. Similarly, we have articles on military aircraft crashes (and they actually don't crash that frequently and kill in Israel). This crash occured during a joint-training exercise between two countries, had a significant impact on future exercises between the two countries and their relations, led to an official state investigation, as well as a memorial in Romania for the crash. The crash also led to the IAF upgrading their fleet of Sikorskys, something that was finished just a few months ago. --Activism1234 21:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I stand by my statement earlier, "The article appears to be supported by reliable sources and provides sufficient content.". SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to administrator This comment was canvassed for here[3]....William 12:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really. SwisterTwister already gave his/her opinion here, but it was removed when the action to close this was reverted, so I felt SwisterTwister may want to add it back in. That isn't at all canvassing, it wasn't some random person. --Activism1234 01:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Activism1234's comments. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You recreated the article that had been previously deleted. Why didn't you take it to WP:DRV as is the norm for saving articles that are deleted?...William 12:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Editors who want to check on the past practice regarding *articles* on military crashes might look at List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present). You can check how many of the listed crashes have their own articles. I don't know any obvious way to find past AfD discussions about military crashes. This is only a personal observation; I have no opinion on this AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the editor who AfD'ed this, WilliamJE was just blocked again for a period of 1 month for battleground behavior, holding and carrying out grudges, personal attacks, WP:SOAP, inappropriate use of user page, etc... --Activism1234 22:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable and well sourced. Frietjes (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per last deletion discussion which moved into user space for merging into other articles. It is really the same as the original article which was previous deleted with a bit of fluff added to it. Military aircraft crash regularly far more than commercial aircraft so they have to be pretty unusual to pass the mark, this doesnt. MilborneOne (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the comment above, to me that is more a rationale to redirect after mergine to the squadron article rather than delete. Redirect per Bushranger.
Keep There are many articles about crashes on Wikipedia. --TheChampionMan1234 06:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - From the references in the article alone, the topic clearly meets WP:GNG. The other issues raised, needs to have a reliable source from 2012, seems to be based on a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2012 (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.