Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Colombia army helicopter 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) Kharkiv07 (T) 14:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Colombia army helicopter crash[edit]

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

It's not a notable event, if we had a Wikipedia article for every helicopter crash that occurred, Wikipedia would suddenly be 100000 TB larger. As per WP:Event Kabahaly (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a very notable event with a high amount of fatalities and major news coverage. I will add to the article soon. This is one of the largest aviation incidents of 2016, I believe it is the fifth in the number of deaths.Beejsterb (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The crash had 17 fatalities and has received widespread coverage at both the national and supranational level. It is not yet clear whether the event will have lasting significance (the event happened yesterday), but, given that the President announced an investigation, important consequences can be expected. However, the article really doesn't match encyclopedia standards in terms of style. --Arbraxan (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arbraxan's argument. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 11:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's no valid deletion argument from the nom. Saying that the article adds to WP's size and using that as a reason for deletion is the stupidest thing I've ever read. Today. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pretty standard as far as air accidents go in terms of meeting those notability guidelines. However, I will point out that this is the sort of thing that will happen when we try to be a current events reporter instead of an encyclopedia. This article should not have gone live. We have a user sandbox for a reason, and just like the news, nobody wins an award for sub-standard material. MSJapan (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article clearly meets WP:EVENT requirements since its been widely covered in the news, examples include the BBC, the Star, the Indian Express and this was just in the past 24 hours. The argument that the nominator gives is not going to fly. One minor adjustment though; the article came out too soon, but, it'll be fine in a couple days. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments; most news outlets are currently reporting the same short story about the air accident, compare the BBC [1] with the later report by Reuter (day after) [2] and Washington Post (same day as BBC) [3]. This doesn't sway my opinion, at least, not yet. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This event is sufficiently notable. --Dcirovic (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a large number of media carrying the same brief news wire story does not constitute in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources; "number of deaths" does not equate to Notability either. The second sentence of MSJapan's "keep" !vote has actually made a good case for "delete" as well. YSSYguy (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Magnitude of the crash (17 fatalities) moves it beyond the realm of "ordinary" military transport mishaps. Carrite (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2016 (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.