Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Angolan Air Force crash
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 redirect to Angolan Air Force#Accidents and incidents. v/r - TP 01:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 2011 Angolan Air Force crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS ...William 17:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and close No rationale given by the nominator. Lugnuts (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, there is a well-known consensus, spelled out on WP:AIRCRASH, that user:Lugnuts should have consulted before commenting. Nothing in this article gets past WP:GNG or WP:Events. Speciate (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully submit that WP:AIRCRASH is not well known and there is no such prerequisite for posting an opinion here. Please just remark on the article and be WP:CIVIL toward other editors. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ExplanationLugnuts is familar with WP:AirCrash. He has contributed to other aviation deletion discussions. What happened was a series of misunderstandings due to a clumsy edit of mine. I nominated the article for deletion, and then in a separate edit put in the wikiproject links. During that second edit, I accidentally deleted my rationale. Lugnuts came along and made his comment before I fixed this AFD. In the summary of my fix edit I said what happened. Speciate came along after my fix edit and saw the rationale but didn't check the history of this AFD before writing his comment. BTW right after I did my fix edit I notified Lugnuts at his talk page about why the rationale was missing. Does everyone understand what happened now?...William 00:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully submit that WP:AIRCRASH is not well known and there is no such prerequisite for posting an opinion here. Please just remark on the article and be WP:CIVIL toward other editors. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The sheer magnitude of 17 deaths makes this very notable. Easily passes WP:GNG. Simply because of the non-guide wp:aircrash nuance of this being "military" as opposed to "commercial" is not convincing to restrict inclusion. --Oakshade (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is detailed analysis in secondary sources that makes things notable. Show me such sources. Speciate (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteMerge and redirect to either Angolan Air Force or List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present) - 17 deaths does not make an incident notable, unless it is the most deaths ever in a crash in a particular nation, or that a Wikinotable (= blue link) person was killed in the crash. Neither applies here. (Also, arguing that WP:AIRCRASH isn't relevant because it "isn't a guide/policy" is picayune; WP:ATA is also "just an essay" yet nobody peeps when it is brought up in AfDs.) WP:NOTNEWSPAPER ("Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events") and WP:PERSISTENCE ("Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle.") are policies, though - and aside from the initial spurt of news, there is no continuing coverage of this accident and no verifiable effects on operations or procedures in the aviation world caused by this accident. Therefore, this article fails WP:N per WP:PERSISTENCE, fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, fails WP:AIRCRASH. Deletion is clear. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite what Wikipedia WP:LAWYER and bureaucracy might conjure up in fifth paragraph down, sub-clause three etc., if an incident where 17 people lost their lives isn't notable, then the minutiae of Wikipeda's labyrinth of multi-paged self-contradictory "rules" are way out of line with reality. --Oakshade (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to sound heartless, but...how much will this accident be remembered a year from now? Ten? Fifty? As "a plane crashed at X, Y people died," if that. There is no notability for anything more. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite what Wikipedia WP:LAWYER and bureaucracy might conjure up in fifth paragraph down, sub-clause three etc., if an incident where 17 people lost their lives isn't notable, then the minutiae of Wikipeda's labyrinth of multi-paged self-contradictory "rules" are way out of line with reality. --Oakshade (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seventeen deaths is sufficient for notability. And before anyone starts quoting "rules" at me, just let me remind you that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and common sense trumps non-existent "rules". -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Without rules, there is anarchy. Just arguing you don't like the rules is no argument against deletion at all. Tell me why this crash needs an article other than the total of people who died in it? Anyone famous? Was it covered alot in the press?
- FYI, an aviation incident with 14 fatalities[1] was deleted less than two months ago. Fatalities doesn't automatically make an incident notable. BTW that incident had at least a half dozen different articles written on it. This incident has gotten no coverage in six months or more and sparse when it happened. The crash is tragic but its forgotten or getting to that point already....William 18:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- AfDs are about opinions, not rules, and I have given my opinion. It is up to the closer to take that into consideration, not to you to tell me that my opinion is not valid because you happen to disagree with it. "Without rules there is anarchy": Sadly someone else who has misunderstood the nature of Wikipedia in general and AfDs in particular! Guidelines are not rules; they are guidelines. If they were rules we would not be having AfD discussions; it would just be left to admins to delete any article that broke the "rules". Happily this is not the case, so we have these discussions. I really am getting tired of explaining this and I really shouldn't need to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't answer any of my questions. Why other than the fatalaties makes this encyclopedic? Is there anything historical about it that deserves more than a footnote? Just saying rules and guidelines don't apply here isn't a valid argument....William 18:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I said I considered it encyclopaedic because of the number of fatalities. That is a perfectly reasonable opinion. It doesn't need any further explanation just because you claim it does or because you don't agree with it. I find it rather amusing that your "rationale" for nominating this article for deletion amounted to three words, but because you included a (highly subjectively interpreted) section of a policy you think this somehow makes your opinion more valid than mine. Another increasingly common attitude, sadly, that quoting a guideline or policy somehow makes one's opinion more relevant (even if said guideline or policy is highly open to interpretation). With high-handed attitudes like these, it's no wonder that people are getting discouraged from writing articles. They know that someone will come along and with three words attempt to destroy all their work. Note that I am not including patent rubbish which deserves to be deleted here; only perfectly reasonable articles that one individual does not approve of. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been the consensus, over a large number of AfDs, that a large number of fatalities does not confer notability, except in the cases I mentioned above. And the article fails two policies, as well as the applicable notability standard for the type of event in question. WP:COMMONSENSE dictates that this article should not be kept, as, despite 17 fatalities, it is - especially for Africa, sadly - WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:RUNOFTHEMILL is a personal opinion piece that has attracted much more opposition than support. And how many African deaths to you equate to a European or North American death? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It has nothing to do with "how many African deaths equate a [white] death". It has everything to do with the fact that aviation accidents that kill numbers of people in the 10+ range occur, sadly, more often in Africa. And if WP:RUNOFTHEMILL is 'controversial', how about WP:ROUTINE? There is, sadly, nothing about this accident that distinguishes it from any number of other accidents that either do not have articles or have been deleted. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:RUNOFTHEMILL is a personal opinion piece that has attracted much more opposition than support. And how many African deaths to you equate to a European or North American death? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been the consensus, over a large number of AfDs, that a large number of fatalities does not confer notability, except in the cases I mentioned above. And the article fails two policies, as well as the applicable notability standard for the type of event in question. WP:COMMONSENSE dictates that this article should not be kept, as, despite 17 fatalities, it is - especially for Africa, sadly - WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I said I considered it encyclopaedic because of the number of fatalities. That is a perfectly reasonable opinion. It doesn't need any further explanation just because you claim it does or because you don't agree with it. I find it rather amusing that your "rationale" for nominating this article for deletion amounted to three words, but because you included a (highly subjectively interpreted) section of a policy you think this somehow makes your opinion more valid than mine. Another increasingly common attitude, sadly, that quoting a guideline or policy somehow makes one's opinion more relevant (even if said guideline or policy is highly open to interpretation). With high-handed attitudes like these, it's no wonder that people are getting discouraged from writing articles. They know that someone will come along and with three words attempt to destroy all their work. Note that I am not including patent rubbish which deserves to be deleted here; only perfectly reasonable articles that one individual does not approve of. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't answer any of my questions. Why other than the fatalaties makes this encyclopedic? Is there anything historical about it that deserves more than a footnote? Just saying rules and guidelines don't apply here isn't a valid argument....William 18:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- AfDs are about opinions, not rules, and I have given my opinion. It is up to the closer to take that into consideration, not to you to tell me that my opinion is not valid because you happen to disagree with it. "Without rules there is anarchy": Sadly someone else who has misunderstood the nature of Wikipedia in general and AfDs in particular! Guidelines are not rules; they are guidelines. If they were rules we would not be having AfD discussions; it would just be left to admins to delete any article that broke the "rules". Happily this is not the case, so we have these discussions. I really am getting tired of explaining this and I really shouldn't need to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, an aviation incident with 14 fatalities[1] was deleted less than two months ago. Fatalities doesn't automatically make an incident notable. BTW that incident had at least a half dozen different articles written on it. This incident has gotten no coverage in six months or more and sparse when it happened. The crash is tragic but its forgotten or getting to that point already....William 18:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination and per WP:AIRCRASH. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having people that was killed warrants inclusion.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- No, it doesn't. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see which of the three points included at WP:INDISCRIMINATE the article fits in.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Including every crash that killed people, which your comment indicated is your criterion for keeping this, would be 'an indiscriminate collection of information'. See also WP:AIRCRASH's criterion for military flights which this fails on all counts. That said, a merge to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present) might be appropriate. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As per your comments above, if we apply WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER to LOT Polish Airlines Flight 16, this article should be deleted too. Surprisingly, the article was kept, even when there were no fatalities involved.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's quite possible it should be deleted; it's also quite possible that it will wind up passing point #3 of the airliner section of WP:AIRCRASH (changes in procedures/AD issuance). This, however, is not an airliner, but a military aircraft - and, regardless, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS... - The Bushranger One ping only 00:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The accident is already included in the “Accidents and incidents” section of the parent article. That's enough for me.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's quite possible it should be deleted; it's also quite possible that it will wind up passing point #3 of the airliner section of WP:AIRCRASH (changes in procedures/AD issuance). This, however, is not an airliner, but a military aircraft - and, regardless, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS... - The Bushranger One ping only 00:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As per your comments above, if we apply WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER to LOT Polish Airlines Flight 16, this article should be deleted too. Surprisingly, the article was kept, even when there were no fatalities involved.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Including every crash that killed people, which your comment indicated is your criterion for keeping this, would be 'an indiscriminate collection of information'. See also WP:AIRCRASH's criterion for military flights which this fails on all counts. That said, a merge to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present) might be appropriate. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see which of the three points included at WP:INDISCRIMINATE the article fits in.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete sad but just another military transport accident not suitable for a standalone article, it would really need to have killed somebody important or hit something important to get a mention. MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have no particular opinion on whether this incident needs its own standalone article as opposed to being redirected back to Angolan Air Force#Accidents and incidents, but one of the dead seems mildly notable, so I went ahead and created an article on him: Kalias Pedro. Eric Baer (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2012 (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.