Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 True Aviation An-26 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 True Aviation An-26 crash[edit]

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

Article details a small cargo aircraft crash with only three fatalities (sorry to use the word "only" there). This is WP:NOTNEWS and, at least for now, doesn't seem to warrant its own article unless the investigation turns up something that has industry-wide repercussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 23:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly Speedy delete The sources do not support notability WP:GNG. Also, the first two sentences are identical, except two words, to [1], creating a possible copyright violation WP:COPYVIO I'm not experienced enough to know if that short a snippet is too much. Chris vLS (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on - The article is sourced from Aviation -safety.net? then surely it meets GNG. Someone is applying double standards here!! OK the article needs work, but it meets all criteria other than workmanship. So instead of carping, get on and fix!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Petebutt (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not !voting at the moment, but Aviation-safety.net is a database of air crashes and hijackings and therefore tries to document all crashes, however scant the details may be. It alone does not necessarily provide the required in-depth coverage to meet the GNG. YSSYguy (talk)

Keep - False rationale given for deletion. The An-26 is not a small aircraft. It has a maximum take-off weight of ~24,000kg/53,000lb. The three deaths represents 75% fatalities. Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Per Mjroots. This is not a small aircraft or a routine event.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Cargo crashes happen all the time and they are mostly not notable. This flight was carrying shrimp of all things....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Per Mjroots sources ok. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In all, a crash like this doesn't warrant itself as a article alone. I would propose a merge to the Antonov An-26#Accidents and incidents, but its already there. The article, for now, is written like a news article which warrants itself as WP:NOTNEWS and seems like any other cargo crash. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 20:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - fairly major plane crash covered by several major sources. However, it should be rewritten somewhat per WP:NOTNEWS. Smartyllama (talk) 17:51, 14 April 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.