Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Jetways Airlines Fokker 50 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Jetways Airlines Fokker 50 crash[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)

Per WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence of lasting coverage. Not notable. PROD template was removed with ZERO improvement. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 17:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Somalia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to 2024 in aviation Kvng (talk · contribs) left clear feedback on why the PROD was removed; "Removed PROD tag: Deletion contested, consider merge or redirect to 2024 in aviation as preferred WP:ATD". They clearly felt that was better than having an article deleted and you should take their advice rather than dismissing it as 'zero improvement' because they obviously feel the same in that it shouldn't be its own article. Edit summaries are not there to just test your typing and should be read, not dismissed. Nate • (chatter) 20:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get it. Even if you merge some of the content, this SHOULD be deleted.

Edit summaries are not there to just test your typing and should be read, not dismissed

I know what edit summaries do. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 20:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — routine coverage without lasting effects so NOTNEWS. I have no objection to merging/redirecting the article. Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 20:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'~~Delete'~~: as nom. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 20:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate vote It is assumed by your nomination you're asking for deletion, and you cannot vote twice. Nate • (chatter) 20:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sorry. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 21:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrSchimpf Now I'm not socking am I? It's just a reinstatement of my opinion. Editors do this all of the time. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 21:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have unstruck it, and will only strike it back when I get a third opinion. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 21:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted; we do not allow duplicate votes, and the third opinion will agree (and I certainly did not accuse you of socking). Do not do this again, and assume good faith. Nate • (chatter) 22:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you did. I said I wasn't. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 22:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The third opinion agreed with me. Let's keep this unstruck. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 18:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete as nom" !votes are common, I see no reason to strike this (and have thus unstruck it). Rosbif73 (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate votes (and triple votes, etc.) are always struck. Your deletion nomination is your "vote". We don't allow duplicate votes at any deletion discussions. This is common knowledge for editors who regularly participate at AFDs. Do not "unstrike" it. This has nothing to do with sockpuppetry it's because nominators are not allowed to vote twice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Btw it's a !vote thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 14:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to 2024 in aviation as per original response to the PROD. No evidence of lasting coverage but a redirect could still be useful as this incident did get coverage in primary sources. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a summary of the crash is already on 2024 in aviation but there's nothing to merge as mentions on the year in aviation are always kept brief. A redirect would not be useful, and indeed non-notable crashes are often removed from the year in aviation pages. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No point in redirecting to 2024 in aviation if in the end the topic doesn't have an article.

Fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:SUSTAINED. WP:NOTNEWS. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirect not necessary as a fairly unlikely search term. Lacking significant coverage in secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i think it would be better to have it be a merge/redirect due to it being notable enough to be on 2024 in aviation but not notable enough for its own article mainly due to its lack of coverage outside of some sources. IDKUggaBanga (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to weigh Deletion vs. a Merge/Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I also would have PROD this, non-notable incident. Little to no coverage, very little long-term effects. Oaktree b (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even redirecting to 2024 in aviation won't help. Has no significant coverage from secondary sources. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 13:30, 24 April 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.