Talk:Air Littoral Flight 701A

Merge proposal
Yeah, but there are many accidents/incidents that have 0 fatalities on Wikipedia and anyway does the person that died not have any significance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speedbird6104 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. And there are lots of car accidents in which, say 4 people get killed and we don't cover those either. Not even in a List of accidents with Toyota Corollas. Do those persons not have any significance? --Randykitty (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Air accidents are orders of magnitude rarer than car crashes. Air transport is massively more complicated than road transport, and much more heavily regulated, all in the name of safety; things rarely go wrong, so the comparison between the two is not very meaningful. A hull loss with fatalities during scheduled passenger service is generally considered notable enough to have its own article, and we've been systematically doing that so far. This accident might have only one fatality, but I don't see it as substantially different from all the others accident articles. --Deeday-UK (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps those other articles need to be looked at, too. This "article" (unsurprisingly) has not even any substantial sources. The plane came in fast, it got off the runway. The pilot died. Sad, but really nothing extraordinary. --Randykitty (talk) 08:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Plenty of sources added now, including two from 2003 and 2014, seventeen years after the accident, which shows persisting coverage of the event. --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You're kidding, right? Some local coverage (a car accident would have generated such coverage, too) and then some years later some coverage of the resulting court verdict (again, a car accident would have generated such coverage, too, if there had been a court case). That's not what we usually take as "persistent coverage"... --Randykitty (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * La Repubblica, of which two articles are quoted, is a national newspaper, and I seriously doubt an international news agency such as the quoted Adnkronos would cover any car accident and related court cases. --Deeday-UK (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose: The element that makes the crash of a transport category airplane noteworthy is not the number of people actually killed or injured. It is the maximum number of people who can be carried on the aircraft. The ATR 42 can operate with 50 souls on board. If an accident of this kind happens again it could put 50 lives in jeopardy – that is what exercises the minds of regulators, accident investigators, industry leaders, the aircraft manufacturer and the general public. It is also what contributes to the notability of the article on Wikipedia. Dolphin ( t ) 00:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose the merge, Keep the article (but keep it short). There is a policy at WP:AIRCRASH: for large aircraft such as this 50-seat airliner, any accident with at least one fatality is notable enough to be included in wikipedia. As it looks like right now, it is too large to be included in the ATR42#accidents list alone, so this article should be maintained separately.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , AIRCRASH is just an essay and obviously putting the bar way below what GNG demands. And it already is included in the ATR42#accidents list... --Randykitty (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)