Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1988 Aeroflot Tu-134 accident


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 13:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

1988 Aeroflot Tu-134 accident

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article does not meet any of the WP:AIRCRASH criteria. Jetstreamer Talk 22:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:AIRCRASH generally speaks only about inclusion in airport, aircraft and airline articles. The accident involves the highest ever landing speed for an aircraft, a fact which is sourced to verifiable reference. As such the article meets WP:GNG in my view. Brandmeistertalk  23:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is based on two sources, of which one –the most used throughout the page– is a dead link.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As per WP:AFD it's the existence of sources that count towards notability, not that there's a "dead link" to one in a Wikipeida article.--Oakshade (talk) 03:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've marked the article because it fails the three criteria mentioned in WP:AIRCRASH, not because of the lack of sources.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That link still opens in my browser, don't know why it was marked as dead. Anyway the same information goes in the other reference. Brandmeistertalk  07:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I thought it was just Unicode gibberish—all the characters have accents?—but teh Google sayeth otherwise. I guess it just got transcribed wrong, or something, but the correct characters are still under there.  Ignatz mice•talk 13:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article is mislabeled, as its name gives the impression an accident happened, when this is a minor incident, at most: no injuries, no fatalities, no major damages to the aircraft involved. I don't see how this is notable.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that exactly because there were no fatalities despite the unprecedented landing speed the event is particularly notable. Brandmeistertalk  14:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Nothing happened" =/= notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Question: While not meeting WP:AIRCRASH is clear, are there any sources that would cause the accident to pass WP:GNG? - The Bushranger One ping only 15:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find English-language references, but the 2006 issue of Russian aviation magazine Vzlyot confirms the event: "31 декабря 1988 г. в аэропорту Одессы этот самолет установил неофициальный «мировой рекорд» скорости приземления летательных аппаратов - 415 км/ч, но, несмотря на это, оставался в эксплуатации еще долгое время" ("On December 31 1988 in Odessa airport that aircraft (Тu-134А) set the unofficial world record for landing speed among air vehicles - 415 km/h, but nonetheless [the aircraft] remained in service for a long time"). As such I think the event meets WP:GNG. Brandmeistertalk  17:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The key word here is ″unofficial″. The article is based on a fact that hasn't been officially confirmed.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is unofficial because due to obvious hazard it's not a good idea to set the landing speed records, especially on a passenger aircraft. As such no attempt to make it official was made. Brandmeistertalk  17:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Then, the speed values provided cannot be accepted as an actual occurrence.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Those are values, provided by verifiable reliable sources. Besides, there was an investigation of the event according to article's refs and measuring the aircraft's speed seems to be one of the key issues of the accident. Brandmeistertalk  18:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I did not express my thoughts correctly. You mentioned above that the record-breaking speed we're referring to is unofficial. Following this, what I meant to say is that, even though the speed values provided can be actual, the lack of an official confirmation for them entails that there's no point in keeping and article that is loosely based on unconfirmed facts.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Being official is not a notability criterion. As I wrote above, the record wasn't submitted for third-party recognition apparently because it wasn't the case to be proud of, otherwise those guys would have been considered crazy on international level. The landing speed was most likely confirmed during domestic investigation, which may be considered as official recognition. The confirmation by two aviation-related online sources is sufficient in my view, although there may be more RS. Brandmeistertalk   19:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing a lot of "maybes" and WP:OR-ish speculation, but no cited facts. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Landed fast, ran off the runway, was forgotten. No WP:PERSISTENCE, no significant changes to procedures, no fatalities, no apparent reliable sources confirming a hull loss. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're already counted as having !voted "delete" by your nomination. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per above; the fact that the article is an orphan also points to non-notability (at least in my mind...) Ansh666 21:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: The high landing speed is notable. I agree it doesn't really seem like an "accident"; change it to "incident" if you like.  Ignatz mice•talk 23:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE. Moreover, no official confirmation for these velocities.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That linked page is just an essay, not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Brandmeistertalk  08:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The point of the essay is to get people to give reasons for their vote apart from just the canned "it's notable" (or the opposite), which doesn't really help anyone understand why they think so. Ansh666 10:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:ONLYESSAY. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete just a bad day at the office nothing of encyclopedic note. MilborneOne (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.