Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish army Sikorsky 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. Consensus seems to favor the notion that this incident is not notable enough for a stand alone article. Will be happy to userfy if anyone wishes to use it as the basis for additions to a related existing article or list. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish army Sikorsky crash

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

Not notable per WP:AIRCRASH. Nobody notable on board which is a criteria for military crashes. WP:NOTNEWS also applies

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 13:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William 13:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 13:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ...William 13:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC) ...William 13:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, a military accident or incident in a combat zone is rarely notable. Military accidents are far more common than in civvy street so it would take something exceptional to raise this from an entry in List of aviation accidents and incidents in the War in Afghanistan to a stand alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only is this one of the more deadly helicopter accidents during the Afghan war, it is also the largest loss of life for the Turkish Army during the war and so far the deadliest aviation accident this year. Michael5046 (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Deadliest incident so far, but - WP:CRYSTAL aside - unlikely to remain so - and fails WP:AIRCRASH, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. If it remains the deadliest crash and shows WP:PERSISTENCE no prejustice against recreation. Note that if kept must be renamed, current title is horribly ambiguous. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Worldwide noticed. Clearly longterm. Support rename. Tagremover (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This Nimrod crash has 14 fatalities too. --Ysangkok (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Besides the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, they are hugely and fundamentely different. That crash was the direct cause of major controversy about servicitibility of the whole fleet, a commision to examine said servicibility and a lawsuit against an MP because of the crash (all three things which were heavily covered by the media). This has none of that. Ravendrop 21:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Crashes of military aircraft in combat zones are rarely notable. Nick-D (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment fails AIRCRASH & NOTNEWS but may pass GNG. That being said as this is an article about an event, article does not yet appear to pass WP:EFFECT. Right now it may fall under WP:TOOSOON and might be best to place the article into incubation, and if it has been found not to pass AIRCRASH, EFFECT, or GNG in the future it can be moved back into the articlespace. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This crash is not an encyclopedic event. Esc2003 (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note although this discussion is still open the article has been moved to the ambigious 2012 Sikorsky helicopter crash by User:Undescribed. MilborneOne (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michael5046. Also: WP:GNG requires: "Significant coverage" (check - it was in every mainstream newspaper and other media, all over the world) "Reliable" (check, sources are reputable news organizations) "Sources" (check, secondary sources are provided in the articles' references) "Independent of the subject" (check, again, news items were not fabricated). --Ysangkok (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Newspaper coverage is routine. Thousands of media outlets carry wire service stories all the time. Most of them are not notable....William 13:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Sikorsky H-60 or its corresponding list of accidents / incidents as this is not notable enough to justify a solo articlePetebutt (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seventeen fatalities and the worst Turkish loss of life thus far in Afghanistan. Clearly notable. May well not be exceeded, and if it is, so what? -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - military aircraft crash far more regularly than civil aircraft and in particularly flying in a combat zone is not particularly safe and so accidents and incidents are mainly not notable which is why military accidents have a far higher notability threshold. Sad that soldiers were killed but it is an operational combat zone and this sort of thing happens but it doesnt justify a stand alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: With the death toll now at 17 from this disaster, it has the second highest fatality number in aviation crashes out of the current 11-year War in Afghanistan. It has been covered by all the major news outlets worldwide and is Turkey's largest loss of life in the War in Afghanistan. John Cengiz talk 20:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - sorry its sad but people die in war but it doesnt make it notable its the nature of warfare, and this is an encyclopedia not a death score card. MilborneOne (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep second deadliest single incident in Afghanistan from any country is a claim of notability, seems like it passes WP:GNG. Renominate later if needed. Secret ^account 18:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- second deadliest single incident in Afghanistan from any country is a claim of notability - no, only the deadliest one is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - In a 10 year, highly publicized war that many countries are involved, it is a valid claim or notability unlike most we see on Wikipedia. Secret ^account 00:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, the longer the war and more entities involved, it becomes less of a claim of notability simply because there's more likely to have been more crashes. However, either way, this is what lists are for, not stand-alone articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:42, 28 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.