Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1979 Mosfellsheiði air crashes

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. Daniel (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1979 Mosfellsheiði air crashes[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)

Two aviation incidents combined into one article and neither is notable. Military and general aviation crashes are very common and unless they have a WP notable on board not notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:33, 30 January 2021 (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? 22:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:33, 30 January 2021 (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? 22:33, 30 January 2021 (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? 22:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG as they have received significant coverage in reliable sources over a significant amount of time. These are well known aviation incidents in Iceland and as can been seen in the sources of the article they are still being covered more than 20 years after they happened. The reason they are combined into one article should be obvious. Alvaldi (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
leaning keep First, I would agree that the two accidents need to be treated as one extended incident; all reportage does the same. And it certainly attracted local ≥interest that persists. The only reason I'm not full on to keeping is that there doesn't seem much international interest, which isn't surprising considering that the initiating incident involved civil aviation, which is rarely notable on its own. Mangoe (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mangoe: As far as I know there are no requirements for Wikipedia articles to have sources from multiple nations, significant coverage in national media of a given country is generally enough. This incident was front page news in all five major national papers in the country [1][2][3][4][5] and had sustained coverage in the months following, mostly due to two things, that fact that three people survived two air crashes in four hours and the revelation of the disarray of the communication abilities of the countries SARS units [6][7]. Alvaldi (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Military and general aviation crashes are very common and unless they have a WP notable on board not notable Unless they otherwise pass WP:GNG, as you know being a long-time editor. And this does. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete significant local coverage of a couple of unexceptional crashes. Obviously big news in Iceland but I don't think it quite meets GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mztourist: The coverage sourced in the article is on a national level, i.e. in the major nationally distributed news media outlets of Iceland but not local town or county media outlets. As per WP:EVENT A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred). This is an event still being covered by the major news outlets of the country 20 years later. Alvaldi (talk) 09:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Local as in in Iceland, no coverage outside of Iceland, as I said I don't think it quite meets GNG.Mztourist (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does not meet the requirements for the Wikipedia:PLANECRASH, however significant coverage in national media about the crash does meet the requirements for the WP:GNG. --Kemalcan (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PLANECRASH applies and that the "aftermath" section of a series of crashes which happened 40 years ago is only a single line demonstrates a general lack of WP:IMPACT --LaserLegs (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG supersedes WP:PLANECRASH. WP:GNG states If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. An event that still receives significant coverage 40-years later pretty much passes that. Alvaldi (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And even with that aside WP:AIRCRASH was depreciated for stand-along articles after some pretty acrimonious discussion some time back. (Also yes, the implication that an article can pass GNG but fail a supplemental guideline or essay and thus should be deleted is preposterous). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nom is making a generalization of "Military and general aviation crashes are very common" instead of addressing the GNG passing criteria of this specific topic. Oakshade (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it passes WP:GNG on a national level per Alvaldi. enjoyer|talk 10:24, 6 February 2021 (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.