Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AeroUnion Flight 302

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AeroUnion Flight 302[edit]

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

Frequent occuring cargo plane crash. Not Notable per WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS.William 12:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)- William 12:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. - William 12:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. - William 12:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. A tragic accident, but doesn't seem to be one that will be brought up in the history books beyond "aircraft of type X crashed at Y on Z because of A". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:AIRCRASH does not give added notability to passenger aircraft, nor does it detract from the notability of cargo aircraft. In this case, not only were all on the aircraft killed, but there was a ground casualty too. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and suggestion- Casualties don't make a crash automatically notable enough for an article. How about merge this article into the one for the aircraft involved, the A-300?"- William 14:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Airliner hull loss, fatalities on the aircraft and the ground, meets WP:AIRCRASH criteria. - Ahunt (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - probably enough material for an article as it stands already, but bear in mind that once the official reports are published there will be a bit more as well, especially on the sources side. TheGrappler (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think of a cargo plane crash as equivalent to the same aircraft in passenger service crashing with a low passenger count. Because these airframes are being used for passenger service as well, the reasons for the crash and the safety recommendations that are issued have implications for A300s worldwide. Honestly though, our lives really aren't really that better with it here considering the need for cleanup and references that actually work. But no doubt within a year or two it could be, if someone actually cares, a good article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep large jetliner crashes killing 6 people is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2011 (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.