Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Tanzania plane crash outbreak

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. ✗plicit 14:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Tanzania plane crash outbreak[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EVENTCRIT, WP:SUSTAINED and WP:LASTING. Both accidents seem to be unrelated so it would be unusual for both of these accidents to be merged in a single article. While both aircraft sustained substantial damage, none of them were written off and none of the occupants on board were injured. The fact is that, on their own, both of these accidents don't meet the said guidelines which means a split isn't really an option. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of WP:LASTING, WP:FART BrigadierG (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding notability issues, the article is not intended to be a new, there is a follow-up on the investigation of both accidents and the article´s structure is pretended to be encyclopedic. Also, many other aviation accidents and/or incidents articles do not have an impact or notability in the future, some of them did not even have had any impact ever. Therefore, the article failing these guidelines should not be taken seriously, as many others are failing them too and the main objective of the article is to make this extraordinary event be known and remembered by the aviation community. Now, both accidents at first sight may not seem related, but happening both the same day, in the same airport, the same type of aircrafts, the same cause of accident, makes it a really extraordinary event, that in a way, makes both accidents to be clearly related, also because the news related to the event and it´s respective investigation include both accidents at once. It is true that the event itself was not serious or severe, but as many aviation accidents articles fail notability guidlines, fail severness. I think it is not ethical to delete the article while many others are failing the same guidelines, consisting a lot of minor incidents, and even when this is about an extraodinary event. I think this article does not hurt anyone, in fact helps the aviation community with knowledge, so please let´s try to improve the article. Midame0 (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you're making sound like it's a positive thing that happened.

But back to the topic; Therefore, the article failing these guidelines should not be taken seriously, as many others are failing them too and the main objective of the article is to make this extraordinary event be known and remembered by the aviation community.

First of all, if we disregarded all guidelines, we can welcome the creation of hundreds of articles on non notable events.

You keep saying it's an extraordinary event that happened, I agree with that but at the same time, what would you put in the summary if both accidents have different causes? One aircraft was taking off while the other was landing. Those are two different parts of a flight with most likely different causes.

Now, both accidents at first sight may not seem related, but happening both the same day, in the same airport, the same type of aircrafts, the same cause of accident, makes it a really extraordinary event, that in a way, makes both accidents to be clearly related, also because the news related to the event and it´s respective investigation include both accidents at once.

You seem to be confusing cause and result. These accidents didn't happen because of a runway excursion but were caused by something. A runway excursion is not the cause of the accident but is a result of the cause.

To counter your argument, both were the same aircraft but were not operated by the same airline which means both airlines might have different practices which means both accidents most likely have different causes.

Another argument is that one aircraft was not directly involved in causing the other plane to crash, this is not a runway incursion. I've checked the news and I could only see this event being talked about for two days by aviation sites/ blogs. Since then, no new information has been given which fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.

Finally, I would like to see where you heard that both accidents would be merged into one single investigation as that's practically unheard of and also because none of the sources in the article state this, if that's what you meant or I misunderstood.

It is true that the event itself was not serious or severe, but as many aviation accidents articles fail notability guidlines, fail severness. I think it is not ethical to delete the article while many others are failing the same guidelines, consisting a lot of minor incidents, and even when this is about an extraodinary event. I think this article does not hurt anyone, in fact helps the aviation community with knowledge, so please let´s try to improve the article.

Just because other articles fail the aforementioned guidelines doesn't mean others get a pass. You keep saying "articles" in general but could you show us examples of these incidents? No article hurts anybody but the point is that the article needs to have sufficient coverage, sources, secondary sources and a reason to believe that these incidents could have lasting impacts in the aviation industry. The only reason this article was created was because both incidents wouldn't be notable enough to have their own standalone articles. I would love to improve this article but the problem is that this article hasn't shown why it should stay.

I would say an alternate solution is to merge and redirect to Embraer EMB 120 Brasilia#Accidents and incidents. Both incidents are already mentioned on the page so a redirect could be an alternative. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I have never wanted to make it sound like this event happening is good, I do not know what words I used but is not my intention in the least. Both accidents actually occured by the same cause, wich is a landing gear problem. One aircraft suffered it while landing and the other while taking off, but the cause is the same: a landing gear failure. I do not think it is sure which exact problems they suffered, as almost no information is available, but it is confirmed that both aircrafts sufferd a landing gear failure or collapse (I´m not sure), that lead to a runway excursion. Being the aircrafts operated by different airlines may make the cause of the landing gear failure different, but it is likely that they were caused by a problem regarding that type of aircraft. And I´m not sure if both aircrafts were merged into one single investigation, but in the sources I got the information of, it can be understood that they are being investigated by the same group, and happening on the same day place and all these circunstances, it is likely that they are investigating both aircrafts at once.

And yes, i agree that the article lacks coverage, impact, notability, but many more do so. In List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft there are plenty of articles that lack notability, like 2024 Jetways Airlines Fokker 50 crash, wich "has multiple issues", as the notation in the top shows. That article as many others are way worse written and source-linked, lacking notability too. Even though the accidents were of minimal severeness, I highlight the extraordinarity of this event, the fact that all these circunstances took place is something unique, otherwise i would not be loosing my time investigating and writting the whole article. In that list as I said there are plently of cases that are not notable, and i got inspired to write this article becuase of a video a relatively famous pilot youtuber uploaded talking about this event, so I would say it is at least somewhat of notable, definetely more than others in that list. And your suggestion is really good, you could merge and redirect to Embraer EMB 120 Brasilia#Accidents and incidents, but my main goal was to be put on that list I linked above.

Finally I want to say that writting the whole article took me hours, my time as surely yours is important, so I´m not here to write articles that are going to be deleted. If you want to delete it, go on, I´m not going to be discussing this not much more. Do whatever you feel is ok to do, it definetely is the last article I´m ever going to create. Don´t take this personally though. Midame0 (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's say that the first aircraft made a hard landing because of pilot error whilst the second collapsed because of a maintenance issue. The causes would be pilot error leading to a hard landing, gear collapse and runway overrun while the other would be maintenance issue leading to collapse that lead to a runway overrun. Same thing, the gear collapse was the result of the cause.

The investigative agency would probably investigate both at the same time but not investigate both and put it into a single report.

And yes, i agree that the article lacks coverage, impact, notability, but many more do so. In List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft there are plenty of articles that lack notability, like 2024 Jetways Airlines Fokker 50 crash, wich "has multiple issues", as the notation in the top shows. That article as many others are way worse written and source-linked, lacking notability too.

As user tedder said, this is not a reason to keep the article per WP:WHATABOUTX.

I highlight the extraordinarity of this event, the fact that all these circunstances took place is something unique, otherwise i would not be loosing my time investigating and writting the whole article. In that list as I said there are plently of cases that are not notable, and i got inspired to write this article becuase of a video a relatively famous pilot youtuber uploaded talking about this event, so I would say it is at least somewhat of notable, definetely more than others in that list. And your suggestion is really good, you could merge and redirect to Embraer EMB 120 Brasilia#Accidents and incidents, but my main goal was to be put on that list I linked above.

Just an advice, if you don't want to waste your time, it is suggested that you read guidelines on article creation.

More notable or less notable doesn't mean anything as long as you can prove that the article doesn't warrant to be axed.

Uniqueness doesn't determine whether an event warrants an article.

I don't know if you're taking this personally or not but nobody is trying to diminish the event's notability but this article hasn't demonstrated notability and fails multiple guidelines.

Finally I want to say that writting the whole article took me hours, my time as surely yours is important, so I´m not here to write articles that are going to be deleted. If you want to delete it, go on, I´m not going to be discussing this not much more. Do whatever you feel is ok to do, it definetely is the last article I´m ever going to create. Don´t take this personally though.

I mean, it's not our fault that you decided to write an article on an event that hardly demonstrates notability. I'm not taking this personally but you sure do sound like you are. Hopefully you'll stay and contribute. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t see the reply in time. I have to admit that the article lacks notability and the causes may differ as you said. In the beginning, I took this kind of personally because I was hyped to write an article to put it on the list, since I don’t usually write anything. That’s why I was irritated about “no sense reasons”, but now I see that is really a WikiPedia’s rule and it has no sense to write an article about that event. I would say that since nobody seems to report it apart from mainly you, to keep it. If it gets deleted I would not be mad and I don’t longer care, I will just be careful when writing another article if I do so. Midame0 (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Tanzania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Effort spent doesn't change its eligibility, nor does "other arguments exist". If it turns out to be notable later, it can always be restored. Midame0, you can always leave, hopefully you'll stay and contribute to other articles. tedder (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's interesting, but the coverage isn't WP:LASTING. SportingFlyer T·C 00:08, 29 March 2024 (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.