Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel F-16 Crash

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 delete. no prejudice against recreation as an appropriate redirect Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Israel F-16 Crash[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Israel F-16 Crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I originally moved this one to draftspace for further work, as the writing is so bad that the article would need to be completely rewritten. I then discovered that February 2018 Israel–Syria incident already exists, and so Informed the article's creator. However, they insisted on moving this article back into mainspace. BilCat (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's very unfair which you say most content is not worth keeping, The Article contain reliable sources and only pay to incident.MarginalCost reconsider The Article please.Forest90 (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to delete per arguments below about ambiguity of link. Here is a list of Israeli F-16 crashes; no reason to privilege this incident. MarginalCost (talk) 08:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ZLEA, I think the Article totaly is a good Article with reliable sources and only pay to that incident... The writer shape a standard wikipedia Article... If you agree with me support the Article.Forest90 (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Forest90 Actually, the article needs a lot of work as it doesn't comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you want to keep the article, you should move it back to the draft space where you and other editors can contribute until it's ready to be put back into the mainspace. Also, we all know that you were the one who created the article, so refering to yourself as "the writer" or "the author" is not helping. - ZLEA Talk\Contribs 16:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article also appears to be written in an anti-Israeli point of view, a violation of WP:NPOV. - ZLEA Talk\Contribs 16:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Per two above !votes. While I would think a duplicate article that is badly written might deserve deletion, along with the fact a copy was archived, there was mention of "a few details about the strike could also be considered for merging". I do agree it does not deserve to remain as a stand alone article. Otr500 (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Otr500, I rode you'r comment but if you look at this incident you will find as an important incident. In this Article which you said be delete the autor used reliable sources and only pay to incident. compeletly deserve be a Wikipedia Article I think so....Forest90 (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: First, I am glad to see editors working to build a better encyclopedia. Questions to answer:
1)- Is this incident part of February 2018 Israel–Syria incident?
2)- If so why add new stubs or even start-class articles? This would be a split of another article? This is especially true when it would be an improvement to add to what already exists, as part of or an incident related to the other article.
Unless there is some clear reasoning that a separate article should be created it does not make sense to branch off another stub or start-class article, especially when it is so closely related. The idea is to continually improve Wikipedia not just increase the size.
I agree with a redirect because a separate stand alone is not needed. Some editors and admins that close discussions sometimes get a little confused. "Keep" means just that, as well as "delete". All other AFD options are alternatives to deletion, that includes merging, redirecting, and Incubation. In this case (a draft) incubation would be to "keep" in draft space. A redirect (blank-and-redirect), not being part BRD, would normally need a discussion and consensus before reverting. Now, adding in that this article is most definitely problematic the options are more narrow. I mean this with all due respect but the above comments "...is so bad that the article would need to be completely rewritten." is kind wording. The grammar is such that it is very hard to read and make sense of so would definitely have to be completely rewritten. This is not in any way meant to discourage you, or any other editor, but there is so much that would need correction, above the normal editing issues, that it would be impossible to even merge any of the content without a rewriting.
It might be a good idea to activate spell check (if not already being used) and right-click on words underlined in red.
The main issue is that an article already exists and any usable content here could be used in that article. An editor has archived the content so it can be worked on if a redirect is affirmed by consensus. Otr500 (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The ArticleThis is good Article and use reliable sources and only pay to an incident...not more or less...Also the article didn't violated any Wikipedia rolls and I think this sentences are considerable and show the Article value: It is the second time that Israel has lost an aircraft in the invasion to neighbors countries.[1] First one happened in 2006 when an Israeli helicopter was shot down over Lebanon war by a Hezbollah rocket.[1] Forest90 (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Delete (can apply to other crashes). No need for two articles on the same subject. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Strongly oppose redirect. This is a poor fork of the incident article. As for a redirect - there have been several notable Israeli F-16 crashes over the past 30 years (off the top of my head - a crash of a f16 returning from Gaza with off balanced weapon load exploding on ghe runway and killing the pilot, or the crash of the son of Israel's first astronaut Asaf Ramon would be quite notable) - so the redirect for this certainsly should not be to the 2018 incident (one could have a dab or list - maybe).Icewhiz (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article would most likely be moved to a more specific name if it is redirected. - ZLEA Talk\Contribs 23:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and re-direct to February 2018 Israel–Syria incident--Petebutt (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not every F-16 crash that is part of a particular conflict is notable. Bohbye (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to the February 2018 Israel–Syria incident article. No clear solid reason(s) for this downing justifies its own separate article. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as far as I can tell the claim to notability is that it was the first IAF jet fighter combat loss in 36 years, but I don't see why that should warrant an article. The event is already (and more coherently) covered at the February 2018 Israel–Syria incident article, and the term is too vague to keep as a redirect - even if the page is moved as ZLEA suggests, we still have the problem of a vague redirect. Better to create a new more-specific redirect and just do away with this. YSSYguy (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not the first combat loss - e.g. F-16 crashed in 2016 returning from an airstrike in Gaza, which crashed possibly due to load asymmetry (ordnance on one wing, none on the other).[1]. In 2006 a Helicopter was shot down in Lebanon.[2] It is the first jet fighter in 36 years to SAM fire.Icewhiz (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and re-direct to February 2018 Israel–Syria incident as there is a very similar page already there. -- Peter303x (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 20240516051109[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. A redirect would not be amiss. -The Gnome (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. ^ a b "Syria shoots down Israeli warplane as conflict escalates". bbc.com. BBC News. 10 February 2018. Retrieved 15 March 2019.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israel_F-16_Crash&oldid=1137936237"