Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nepal Airlines Flight 555

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 No consensus--Ymblanter (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Airlines Flight 555[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable incident. Planes skid off runways and are written off regularly.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 19:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William 19:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ...William 19:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 19:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC) ...William 19:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No idea how binding this is (per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules), but as a hull-loss accident, the article passes the Wikipedia:Aircrash guideline.--FoxyOrange (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As FoxyOrange notes, it passes WP:AIRCRASH, and at least warrants treatment in the articles about the airport and the airline. I'm not sure yet if it has sufficient coverage to warrant its own article per the criteria set forth there.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hull loss means it is worthy of being mentioned in a aircraft, airline, or airport article. Standalone reads 'If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article above it MAY be notable enough for a stand-alone article if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports....William 21:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - This incident was already included in the articles on the airport and airline. I went and added it to the article on the aircraft. Grandmartin11 (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article satisfies the guidelines at Wikipedia:Aircrash#Aircraft articles. WWGB (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: As there isn't that much information about the accident (yet), could this rather be condensed and merged back into Nepal Airlines, at least for the time being? The infobox and victims' table don't add anything to the article.--FoxyOrange (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete First of all, I'm in agreement with FoxyOrange about the prematurity of this article. But I also see on the aircraft model page that there's a significant Twin Otter crash roughly every other year; very few of these incidents have articles, and compared with those listed, this one is pretty minor. Mangoe (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a condensed summary, in line with the other accidents already listed there, to Nepal Airlines#Incidents and accidents. As Mangoe points out considering the type in question and the severity of the incident this doesn't merit its own article, but seems in line for coverage in the airline article per the accidents already mentioned there (unless, of course, those need trimming...). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per The Bushranger, except that IMO there is already sufficient detail of the accident in the Nepal Airlines article. There have been 260 hull-losses of Twin Otters, including 18 in Nepal alone; and 36 worldwide in the last ten years - which is reflective of the conditions that the type is called upon to operate in. There is no indication that there is anything extraordinary about this crash and I would be surprised if there will be any more coverage after the brief flurry of "it happened" reportage that took place in media that have a vast amount of space to fill these days. YSSYguy (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Patcat88 (talk)
Keep -Krish Dulal (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:Aircrash and has attracted worldwide attention. Even here in Australia I knew something about this crash when it happened.Springyboy (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here in Australia, high-speed car chases and wheels-up landings by light aircraft in the USA, are shown on the news - so not exactly a yardstick for notability; and what can be said about the crash that isn't already covered in the airline article? YSSYguy (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Small plane, seven injuries, no fatalities, no lasting significance... A textbook case of WP:NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AIRCRASH. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as AIRCRASH states that an event must pass the GNG in order to merit having its own article, and there hasn't been any widespread significant ongoing coverage, then it doesn't actually meet the criteria in the AIRCRASH essay. YSSYguy (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG: There are six separate worldwide sources about the incident included in the article, which makes the event more than satisfactorily covered according to our guidelines. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to meet GNG so it meets Aircrash by extension. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources in the article show that the incident meets the WP:GNG satisfactorily. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment again, there has been no widespread significant ongoing coverage, just reports noting that the crash happened. Yesterday and today I have seen about a dozen different reports in different media about a woman in Sydney who was killed while riding her bicycle. There is no question that the coverage of that event concerning an ordinary non-notable citizen confers notability; nor is there for this event. YSSYguy (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2013 (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.