Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Israeli helicopter disaster in Romania

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 Delete very close to a no consensus, its probably easier to just take that option. This needs a resolution WP:Aircrash is clear on military accidents and light aircraft for that matter as the frequency of events is significantly higher than for commercial operators, other factors can influence the end result. I considered WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG, WP:PERSISTENCE as well as the amount of editing done to the article during the afd. Persistance inpart says Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article besides coverage of the event only one source is available that was written well after the event. That source is use to cite that a Romanian on the helicopter is being treated as if he was serving in the IDF with his family recieving a pension and that a memorial is to be created, but its one source and its an Isreali newsource which doesnt address a non local scope of coverage. I also considered the fact that the training was supened for 12 months but thats standard practice after most military accidents of any size while cause is established. Additionally due to the similarities of events I considered Special_Air_Service_Regiment_(Australia)#Blackhawk_tragedy as a guide. While this has been closed as delete restoration to user space to enable inclusion of material into the appropriate IDF is a reasonable request. Gnan garra 03:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Israeli helicopter disaster in Romania

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

Doesn't meet WP:Aircrash for military crashes William 12:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 12:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -William 12:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -William 12:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 12:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Event was extensively covered in Romanian, Israeli and international media. Marokwitz (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The criteria for Military air crashes says-

the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim), or

The accident resulted in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, including changes to national or company procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directives (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft).

Don't see any proof this accident meets either one.- William 13:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very extensive coverage in international press, not only in Israel and Romania, but worldwide. While the non-guideline WP:Aircrash might be helpful sometimes, it is subject to the actual guideline WP:GNG in which this topic easily passes. Under the current state of WP:Aircrash, 1994 Scotland RAF Chinook crash wouldn't technically pass it. Clearly WP:aircrash has a long way to go before it's considered to the standard to decide aviation article inclusion. --Oakshade (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Oakshade. Poliocretes (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seven deaths and extensively covered by the media. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see that the GNG is met here. Yes, there was an intial explosion of news stories - as would be expected; however WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is the qualifier here. With the exception of a note in the Jerusalem Post article when training resumed a year later, all coverage was at the time of the crash; there is no evidence of WP:PERSISTENCE. It was a tragic accident, yes, but not worthy of a stand-alone article. It would, however, be worthy of note in Israeli Air Force and/or Israel–Romania relations. Also, if kept, this needs renaming. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is easily met here with - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." - The independent coverage is very significant. What you're talking about is the sub-clause WP:NOT#NEWS in WP:EVENTS that applies to "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities." Obviously the coverage here is not routine coverage on things like "announcements, sports, or celebrities." That WP:PERSISTENCE is a mere suggestion and in no manner a requirement. --Oakshade (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is not routine coverage. Furthermore this event has impact on international military relations between the countries. It is not an event of merely local significance. Marokwitz (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per reasoning given by Bushranger. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, per Bushranger and per WP:NOTNEWS. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#NEWS, as it states, applies to "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities." A horrible accident that in which many people were killed is not routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities.--Oakshade (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selective quoting from WP:NOTNEWS really doesn't help your case - it states that "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events [emphasis added]. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." This was a newsworthy event that's not been of lasting significance (except, of course, to the families and friends of the people killed in the crash), so WP:NOTNEWS does apply here in my view. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're actually playing the "selective quoting" card. I'm fine with you quoting the rest of WP:NOT#NEWS, but you only quoted the first sentences. It actually goes on to say WP:NOT#NEWS applies to "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" which of course this topic is none of. --Oakshade (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sign of any notability just one of many non-notable fatal military accidents that happen each year. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again WP:NOTNEWS applies here. Persistency matters. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Keep" votes citing the amount of coverage are ignoring the necessary WP:NOTNEWS rider to WP:GNG. WP:EVENT does ask for persistence of coverage and/or lasting effects (and also incidentally states that geographical scope of coverage is not sufficient - which makes sense, since lots of things get short-term international coverage in Our Global Age but ultimately fade into oblivion). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Roscelese and other delete votes. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Oakshade, WP:GNG - significant coverage in independent reliable sources.—Biosketch (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTNEWSPAPER/WP:PERSISTENCE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bushranger. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Marokwitz. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above reasons.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, standard WP:NOTNEWS case. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Oakshade's comments. --Codrin.B (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' per meeting GNG, regardless of whether WP:Aircrash is satisfied. WP:persistence and WP:notnewspaper are things to be considered but are not dispositive merely by citation, those concepts clear out some fluff but not well-covered multiple-death accidents like this one, though perhaps they have some application to the innumerable articles like TAROM Flight 3107.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EVENT. IMHO, this tragedy only meets two standards of the EVENT criteria (Depth and diversity). I agree with User:The Bushranger that WP:PERSISTENCE is the missing component. Failing persistence, NOTNEWSPAPER applies. BusterD (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the article has been expanded significantly since the original proposal. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:14, 31 January 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.