Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2001 Antonov Design Bureau AN-70 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   keep. No rationale to close has been offered, not judging the merits of the merge rationale as that discussion can continue on the talkpage. J04n(talk page) 17:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

2001 Antonov Design Bureau AN-70 Crash

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable aviation incident. ...William 23:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The Russian government spent over 5 billion dollars to develop this aircraft. Two were built and they both crashed. This one was repaired at great expense and is the only one left. The plane was built to NATO specs. That's not notable? There are customers in Europe that have ordered several of these planes based on the performance test of this plane that was broken in two and rebuilt. This aircraft flew in 2012 and valuable flight data was retrieved. Waiting for reply, respectfully, Samf4u 01:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge with Antonov An-70. It is the aircraft that is notable. This is just one incident in its very long development history. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328! Thanks for your vote to merge this article. You're right, this is one incident in the AN-70's very long history. Can you name any aircraft of this size that was rebuilt after the airframe was broken in half? Just curious. Samf4u 03:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - the accident caused major damage to a large aircraft, which in other circumstances may well have equated to a hull loss. OK, the referencing needs improving, but that is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge with Antonov An-70. Not notable in its own right. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge - The accident is not as notable as we would like and would be amply covered inthe An-70 article.--Petebutt (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is established by references.  Nomination and merge votes above do not explain how notability is not met...it is met by wp:GNG references (although more could be added).  As for some editors' interest in merging (perhaps out of belief that the Antonov An-70 article could be expanded to include the info?), that doesn't really work, IMHO.  This article is about the 2nd prototype's crash, and there's another separate article about the 1st prototype's crash, 1995 Antonov An-70 prototype crash.  Together they have interesting info and together have too much information to merge into the Antonov An-70 article.  It is reasonable for editors of Antonov An-70 article to split these out.  Offhand, I would link them more prominently from the Antonov An-70 article, but that is a matter for editing there.  No reason to merge or to delete;  Keep is best IMHO. -- do  ncr  am  00:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - to take a step back for a moment: Two An-70s have been built. 1995 Antonov An-70 prototype crash provides details about #1. 2001 Antonov Design Bureau AN-70 Crash provides details about #2.  What does that leave Antonov An-70 to cover?  It mentions both incidents and the incidents seem to be within the scope of that article.  Why couldn't they exist as sections there, and split later if they become unmanageably large or unwieldy?  At the moment they amount to about 3 or 4 short paragraphs each.  Maybe less, when excluding information that would be redundant when merged.  AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's an editing decision, best left to editors of the articles, in my opinion, about having separate articles about the 2 prototypes, or having them as sections in the Antonov An-70 article. Having separate articles allows for more/different pictures to be included, and for generally more info to be provided in text and infoboxes, and allows for better targeted categories such as Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2001 and such which are not appropriate for a more general article.  There is value already in them being split out, IMO, and each could be developed more already, too.  They do each have multiple sections already.  In other words, they are "unmanageably large and unwieldy", already, it can be argued.  Note it is practice in wp:SHIPS that there is an article about each ship type, e.g. Arizona-class battleship, even when there are only 2 ships of the type ever built, each of which gets a separate article.  The Antonov An-70 plane type has plenty more going on about it, including fuselages being built in 2012 and activity in 2014.  But the AFD is about notability, i guess, and notability of each of the prototypes and their crashes is clear in my view (it is not disputed here, right?).  So, in my view the AFD decision should clearly be Keep, with no prejudice against editors of the main article choosing to merge in the separate info or not (and I think they will not).  If it were me developing the topic areas, User:AdventurousSquirrel, i personally would choose to have one main article on the plane type and the separate two prototype articles.  And there is nothing to be gained by forcing a merge or two merges upon the editors;  there is nothing wrong with them being separate and this AFD is serving no purpose helpful to development of the Wikipedia, IMO. -- do  ncr  am  15:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Fair points. I don't dispute the notability of the incidents but, it does seem others do. But in any case, I think you bring up some good points and I agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense to force a merge at this point.  AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)




 * Comment- I would be more than happy to work on the lack of inline citations and maybe add another photo, but if the article gets deleted what's the point. Samf4u 13:51, 23 November 2014 (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.