Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agni Air Flight 101

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agni Air Flight 101[edit]

Agni Air Flight 101 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's hard to see what makes this plane crash particularly historically notable, beyond routine news values. Nepal is a dangerous place for flying, this type of aircraft has been lost many times with many fatalities, it is not a particularly deadly crash for Nepal, and it is not particularly unusual crash based on the early reports. I've nothing against recreation in changed circumnstances, but right now, this article is the sort of thing that should be on wikinews. MickMacNee (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The Do228 is an airliner, not a GA aircraft. Accident meets WP:AIRCRASH A3. Added to that is a hull loss with all on board being killed. This should equate to sufficient notability to sustain an article. Mjroots (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This only proves that the AIRCRASH essay is not doing a proper job of giving a scale-able yardstick of general aircrash notability. The airline had five planes and has been going for 4 years, so any kind of fatal crash at all is likely to meet A3. And there have been 23 hull losses of Do228's, so that seems an equally insignificant marker. So, no, it doesn't equate to anything except pointless essay-wonkery. It certainly goes no way to explaining how these facts for this crash equate to historical notability and significance. MickMacNee (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mick, I'm not going to get into a massive debate over the article in question or the guideline essay I quoted. You've stated your reasons for deletion, I've stated my reasons for keeping. Other editors have a chance to give their opinion on the article. At the end of seven days, an uninvolved editor will make a decision. This is how the process works, there is no need to keep arguing each point with a counterpoint. Mjroots (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a Wikipedia Guideline, you can no more quote it as one than you can boil a chocoloate teapot. You can sit it out all you want, it doesn't bother me, just don't complain if your opinion is discounted in the final closure if you couldn't be bothered to defend it when challenged. Yes you've given a reason, well done. But Afd is about debate, not giving everyone a free-vote, and how you got to be an admin without getting this basic idea is beyond me. MickMacNee (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • MMN is correct, WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, per the notice at the top of that page.
  • Keep The common outcome has been that airline accidents (more to the point, non-military scheduled flights by an airline) that result in fatalities are notable. I don't agree with the rationale that this "is not a particularly deadly crash for Nepal". I can't see using a different standard for one nation than we would apply to another. Mandsford 18:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea of 'deadliest for Nepal' comes from AVIATION - L3. I happen to agree with that part, because the whole goal of that essay is, per WP:N, to only keep crash articles that prove to be historically significant, and that is one of the frequent markers. I've no objection to 'any fatal crash of any airline' being the rule if that is accepted by the wider community, but that's not even how the Avitation project's own essay is written currently, so I can't really believe it's the common outcome at all. MickMacNee (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - fourteen dead makes it notable. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That implies there is a magic number of dead to be notable, other than 1. Or is the number 1? Please explain how 14 deaths "makes it notable." MickMacNee (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:AIRCRASH is an essay not a guideline, so let's ignore that for now. Looking instead at WP:EVENT, I see the following text: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources". Looking through the sources, this seems to meet that. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not exactly a nuanced interpretation even though you refer to a Guideline. That sentence is after all just a presumption, not a requirement, hence 'likely', not 'will be'. The international coverage likely exists because there were multiple nationalities on board, i.e. tourists - so in terms of that proving this was a notable crash, unless you are advancing the theory that if it were just 14 Nepalese dead it wouldn't be a notable crash, which would have serious policy complications, it doesn't prove much. And there is diversity of sources? News sources and aviation specific sources? For an aircrash, that's not diverse, that's to be expected. Diversity would be having this featured in news, in Time, and in National Geographic, for example. You will find every aviation incident imagineable is covered in things like the Aviation Herald, it doesn't count as variety here. MickMacNee (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All hands lost, 14 in total is a very serious accident, and that makes it notable. A good article, well written. Keep it. scope_creep (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I put the same question to you as I did to Ser Amantio di Nicolao, where is your evidence that 14 is somehow a magic number? If 14 is a "very serious accident", then what is 100? What is 4? It's just a meaningless non-vote. And being well written is a total irrelevance too, this is Afd, not GAR. MickMacNee (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My experience (no, this is not backed up by policy, only the result of reading Afd's) has been that generally crashes that result in upwards of ten deaths or a hull loss are both presumed unusual enough, and are the cause of much media coverage, which helps to satisfy notability guidelines, to merit an article. Crashes that kill only a few people, or that don't have some other distinguishing feature come a dime a dozen and are deleted, since those are generally general aviation crashes, which happen much more frequently and get less media coverage. C628 (talk) 03:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As said, I would dispute that is a common outcome, especially if AVIATION is routinely used, but if it is, then this insignificant crash will be a good time to challenge it's logic. There have been 23 hull losses of this aircraft, do we have 23 articles? Should we? Obviously not, imho. Creating an article on this crash, for the dubious grounds presented, is simply creating news articles because we can, and is creating a huge WP:RECENTISM issue for the pedia down the line. MickMacNee (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep scheduled flight goes down. If this happened in the US or Europe there would have been no doubt of its notability; alas, some feel that the 3rd world is of a different caliber. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What absolute rubbish. Scheduled flight crashes are not automatically notable, wherever they occur. MickMacNee (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In your initial nomination, you indicated that one of the factors against notability was that "it is not a particularly deadly crash for Nepal". Forgetting, for the moment, the arguments over automatic notability for fatal airline crashes, do you believe that the "wherever they occur" part should be a factor in determining notability? I recognize, of course, that the nomination is based on WP:NOTNEWS, rather than where it occurred or how many people died, and that this recent event happened to occur in the Third World rather than in the U.S. or Europe. I think that it's fair to say that people are interested in reading the details about fatal airline accidents, and not always for admirable reasons; some want to learn more about the technical aspects; some, to be sure, have a ghoulish fascination with the subject. In general, however, the common outcome that has evolved is that articles about fatal airline crashes are going to be kept, regardless of when, where, or how many died; while incidents with no fatalities are far less likely to be kept. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, it is what it is. Mandsford 00:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scheduled flight aircrashes are not automatically notable, wherever they occur. This concept is not incompatible with the idea that notability is down to significance, and crashes in countries where they are rare and have poor safety records, are 'likely' to be more significant that in countries where they are common and have good safety records. But crashes in the USA can still be 'routine' and thus should not be included here, even though they will get more copious news coverage at the time. I dispute this is a common outcome, but if it is, and is being based on just WP:INTERESTING / WP:TABLOID / WP:BIAS, then no, it isn't a Good Thing at all, and should be stopped. MickMacNee (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Merge to the airline article; at the moment it is mentioned basically as a link to the crash article, so there is plenty of scope to expand the accident's coverage there. Without getting into a debate over whether AIRCRASH is this, that or the other, this only meets one criterion, and AIRCRASH states that in those circumstances mention should generally be confined to the article about the airline. There is nothing in AIRCRASH to say that a hull-loss confers notability, or that number of deaths confers notability, or that a scheduled flight confers notability. The quote from WP:EVENT has that word and, and I can't see any "widespread impact" or "very wide" coverage anyway. Mandsford's comments are incorrect; a number of articles concerning airline accidents resulting in fatalities have been deleted. Apart from anything else, I think this also falls foul of WP:NOTNEWS and that there will be no lasting significant coverage. While I accept the premise that there is a Third-World bias, in that many people on WP think that events in the USA or Europe are intrinsically important; IMO that does not make this article a keeper, rather we have to work to overcome the "everything in the First World is important" mentality. YSSYguy (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:AIRCRASH. No brainer, really. Lugnuts (talk) 06:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Far from being a 'no brainer', AIRCRASH is a reason not to keep it. YSSYguy (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. Yet another airplane crash. Just because it occurred does not make it notable. Wire services routinely write these articles and drop any coverage the next day, granted, it's not exactly the next day. One week from today, will this still have lasting significance? —Mikemoral♪♫ 22:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Mikemoral. Diego Grez (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet another article on a light aircraft that crashed with very few fatalities. Per WP:NOTNEWS, one sudden burst of media attention is not indicative of lasting notability. This will be completely forgotten about in a few weeks, along with all the other minor aviation accidents. The only way such a small incident can have any lasting notability is if there is something exceptional about it. A high death toll or significant ground casualties could be exceptional, but in the absence of that, there needs to be something more unusual than just another light aircraft falling from the sky. This incident lacks anything distinctive or unusual about it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - it was an airliner, not a light aircraft. Mjroots (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep encyclopedic article on one of the biggest aircrashes in Nepal in recent times. would be of interest to readers researching air safety in that part of the world for years to come.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Define "encyclopedic", "one of" and "recent times". If this rationale got any vaguer the text would be blurry!. And I seriously doubt any researcher will be reading this article in years to come, but as ever, if you have a way of proving this is not just baseless speculation, I'm all ears. MickMacNee (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt anybody can have a reasoned argument with you Mick. stop wasting every bodies time. no way in hell is this article going to get deleted.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you haven't made a reasoned argument yet, so how would you even know? MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
exactly my point. multiple reasoned arguments exist from multiple editors yet you fail to see even one of them. even if I made one you will not be able to comprehend it. trust me on that one.i will be more than happy to come over and explain on your talk page why this article was kept after the AfD is closed.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we've yet to see if you can make one. But if you want to speak for other people, then give me a for example of a reasoned argument having been given, and then me 'not being able to comprehend it'. MickMacNee (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if you cant see one reasoned argument in this whole AfD to "keep" the problem is with you, so stop your completely non sense rants and do something useful for the project, this is definitely where WP:SNOW applies you might want to read WP:POINT also--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is you and your lack of Wikipedia knowhow it seems. I said I haven't seen one from you. I've seen some from others, and I've properly countered them, and await the final reckoning of an admin who knows his good arguments from his bad arguments. That's how Afd works. Your knowledge of the process though is beyond clueless if you think this is anywhere near a SNOW case, and let's not even begin to take apart your idea of what POINT means, it would be just embarassing tbh. You really should just quit now if you have nothing to actually say about this debate from a factual, or policy clueful, standpoint. I am doing something usefull for the project, which is not a news repository, using fully mandated and totally normal means. Others are free to choose how they deal with that to best effect, but attacking me won't make shit all difference on that score. But I really don't expect you to comprehend that in the slightest on current evidence. That's more like advanced wiki-clueness tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note. This IP has made no other edits to the project except to copy and paste this same vote across three Afds of wildly different crashes
—Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs) 11:54, 26 August 2010
  • Keep. Clearly notable due to extensive international press coverage. Also first crash for the airline and one of the deadliest crashes of a Do228. --memset (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the difference between "extensive international press coverage" and just press coverage spread across the wires? Is there evidence that this coverage has gone beyond just wire repetition? Is there evidence that the coverage is infact "extensive", or is it just normal and expected for this type of accident? Are you saying this amount of coverage means it is automatically notable? If so, why, given that the GNG is just a presumption, and to be notable it still has to be proven that the article does not violate NOT#NEWS. As for "first crash for the airline" - is this significant, for an airline with only five planes? Has this been mentioned in any of the sources as a significant aspect of this crash? Also on "one of the deadliest crashes of a Do228". Can you be more specific, is it the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or other? Is this a significant aspect of this crash? Has it been mentioned in any of the sources as a significant aspect of this crash? MickMacNee (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't be ridiculous.--memset (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake, I thought this was Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's notable. Scheduled airline service, crash resulting in deaths. William 12:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fatal scheduled flight aircrashes are not automatically notable. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Maybe someone should ask the relatives of those killed whether it warrants its entry. Also this could prove useful for anyone investigating the air crash record for Nepal.Stchapman (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a convincing argument for keeping the article. We don't take relative's wishes into account when deciding if a fatal accident is notable enough for an article, and certainly not when deciding if something is historically significant. And the theory that it might someday be usefull is also not very compelling. There is no reason for keeping an entire article on this one crash, and every other one like it by implication, just to be able to research the crash record of Nepal. Due to their safety record, any such research material is better represented in list form frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just to annoy MickMacNee. (Gabinho>:) 00:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    Placing patently invalid votes doesn't annoy me, it's the ones that appear valid, but have no grounding in practice or policy that annoy me. That, and Wikireader41 fo just being himself generally. MickMacNee (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this is exactly how you are hurting the project. you are pissing off editors by your demeanor so instead of providing useful reasoned !votes they do this. the feeling is mutual MMN. no grounding in practice or policy?? who is the only one here who has been blocked > 20 times for failing to understand basic WP policy ??--Wikireader41 (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
who is the only one here who has been blocked > 20 times for failing to understand basic WP policy Can I take a wild stab at this one?! Lugnuts (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could give a monkeys if I piss you off Wikireader41, you've contributed nothing but irrelevance to this Afd and others, the project would be far better off if you retired frankly. You and lugnuts are the sort of lame-ass comedy duo that keeps on performing while not realising nobody in the audience finds them remotely funny, or even interesting. MickMacNee (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have enough self respect to retire if I were to be blocked 20 times. get the message MMN. nobody wants you and your ability to contribute is marginal at best.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have enough self-respect not to come out with schoolgirl lameness like this in an Afd, period. MickMacNee (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this actually a vote? !Votes need proper reasoning behind them, which it lacks. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A plane crash killing 14 is significant in any country. The event got major international coverage by reliable sources (not just Nepalese coverage).--Lester 16:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it, don't just assert it, because it is a proveably false claim - Wikipedia has not, and unless some core policies change, likely never will not, declare a 14 death aircrash as automatically notable. And international coverage is irrelevant, it simply existing does not defeat NOT#NEWS concerns without further explanation/analysis, which you have failed to provide with this one line vote. MickMacNee (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Agni_Air_Flight_101&oldid=1137544711"