Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biman Bangladesh Airlines Flight 60

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. The majority of arguments sided with RecycledPixels' rationale and sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biman Bangladesh Airlines Flight 60

[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)

WP:NOTNEWS. Runway over runs are very common. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:EVENT guidelines. Jmertel23 (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Runway overruns are common, but in this case the plane disintegrated as a result. I’ve never heard of this happening in any other case. Doesn’t that make it notable? Mccapra (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. WP:NOTANTINEWS insists on waiting a week before determining the notability of news events, and the hull loss might prove significant per WP:HEY. Having said that, there were no fatalities and runway runovers are fairly common. – John M Wolfson (talk | contribs) 22:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We're speculating here about what might develop for notability. That's why we're NOTNEWS. Let's not speculate - or hypthosize that HEY might occur. Let's judge notability now for which I don't see clear evidence of what will be lasting notability. If we really want to see which way this goes then we should draftify not keep in mainspace, but again WP:NOTNEWS is a policy for a reason as opposed to essays mentioned above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Write-off. One thing is a runway excursion or overrun and the other thing is a crashed plane that brakes in 3 pieces and where there are also casualties. (Gabinho^>:) 05:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Delete This type of accident is to common. If we are going to add everyday accidents such as these then it’ll become crowded. No one died and the aircraft did not catch fire nor did anything else out of the normal occurred. I am 100% against keeping it. It’s nothing special. 82.132.244.2 (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A crash of a regularly scheduled commercial passenger airliner on an international flight, resulting in a total hull loss and multiple injuries, with no shortage of independent, international news sources covering it certainly meets notability standards. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've tried to add some additional sources, but was getting edit conflicted, so I'll come back to it later, but there are no shortage of reliable sources to draw from. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Associated press, appearing in Washington Post - [1] and ABC News - [2]
Reuters - [3]
Additional regional sources that show up on google news. These will typically have more in-depth coverage, and these 4 particular sources have several follow-up articles as well.

Dhaka Tribune - [4] [5] [6]
Myanmar Times -[7] [8]
Daily Star (Bangladesh) - [9] [10] [11] [12]
BD News 24 - [13] [14]

These are just English-language searches. A Bangladeshi airline crashing in Myanmar is also going to have a lot of non-english sources that are harder for me to search for. Some examples trying some cut-and-paste searches from the Chinese language Wikipedia article on this crash turn up the following:

German language searches: [19] [20]
Spanish language searches: [21] [22] [23]
French [24] Vietnamese [25], I'll stop now... RecycledPixels (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- per RecycledPixels, should add reliable sources listed above and I think passes notability- -MA Javadi (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The aircraft was a hull loss, breaking into 3 pieces. Hull losses will automatically meet WP:NOTE. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID. The crash meets the WP:AIRCRASH essay (size, hull loss, injuries). An international passenger flight breaking up into 3 pieces on landing is far from routine. We had international coverage of this recent event, and at this point it is too soon to evaluate SUSTAINED. Icewhiz (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep: despite no fatalities, the injuries and the hull loss indicate a serious incident that will attract an investigation into the cause, and until the cause is known, it is a matter of just waiting on our side. --Minoa (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2019 (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.