Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Albania MC-130 Combat Shadow II 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.  Sandstein  10:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

2005 Albania MC-130 Combat Shadow II Crash

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Military accidents are generally non-notable regardless of how many are killed. Notability can be conferred if there are civilian casualties, extensive infrastructure damage, changes to legislation or operational doctrine, etc. etc., or anything that could be construed as notable in it's own right, such as notable passengers WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG and as a guide: WP:AIRCRASH Petebutt (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 17:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 17:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 17:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 17:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 17:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Which of our policies says "notability can be conferred if there are civilian casualties" - this easily meets GNG and you should have checked before nominating - the fact that only military personnel were killed is not a valid grounds for nomination, neither is your personal opinion that civilian deaths are more notable, and I suggest you withdraw this ill-conceived nomination: cnn nbc chicago tribune stars and stripesSeraphWiki (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete military aircraft accidents are fairly common and are rarely noteworthy for a stand-alone article unless they kill or hit something notable. I cant see anything in this accident that passes the bar for a stand-alone article. A mention in List of accidents and incidents involving the Lockheed C-130 Hercules is sufficient. MilborneOne (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable for a separate article; unfortunately, a fairly common occurrence. Agree with MilborneOne as to where is should be mentioned in a separate article. Kierzek (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yet we still have articles on: It seems any incident where an "Israeli civilian" is killed or even just targeted is worthy of a standalone article (despite repeated efforts to have these articles merged to lists during AfDs), but an incident where 9 members of the United States military lose their lives is non-notable and "a fairly common occurrence". It's shameful, if not surprising. SeraphWiki (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack
 * 2017 Jerusalem truck attack
 * 2017 Portland train attack
 * 2017 Halamish stabbing attack (a "massacre" where three people were killed)
 * June 2017 Jerusalem attack
 * 2008 Jerusalem BMW attack
 * 2014 Jerusalem vehicular attack (which is so common it needed its own DAB page)
 * 2014 Jerusalem tractor attack
 * 2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing
 * 2016 Jerusalem shooting attack


 * Comment - none of them appear to be aircraft accidents so I am not sure what the relevance is here. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, its not a valid policy grounds for deletion. The correct policy is WP:NOTNEWS and at least some of these articles have been challenged under that policy and closed keep, as well as many other minor "terrorist attacks" or "attempted attacks" throghout the world. Invariably, the AfD discussion closes keep. These attacks are actually more common than military plane or helicopter crashes and nine deaths is a high number for a single crash. There is no policy based justification to keep every terrorist attack article and delete articles about military accidents. The lives of members of the United States military are just as valuable as civilian lives. SeraphWiki (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - Still dont get the relevance of terrorist attacks, this is about a military aircraft crash during training I dont see any terrorist involvement. I also dont see the fact that they were United States military involved which has no relevance to it being noteworthy. MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for stating that in your own words, because it gets to the heart of the problem with how this policy is applied, the policy does not turn on whether there is "terrorist involvement" or whether deaths of U.S. military has "relevance to it being noteworthy" - I reviewed and accepted the article through AfC based on my knowledge of previous AfDs involved the policy WP:NOTNEWS. The relevant part of the policy in these discussions is whether the occurrence is "routine". In August 2017 there had been 14 non-combat aviation crashes that year - there were more terrorist attacks in any given month of 2017. Editorial POV that terrorist attacks are more inherently notable than United States military deaths in plane crashes has absolutely no policy-based justification SeraphWiki (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope you have lost me and I dont know where this "routine" stuff comes from or why you are comparing military aircraft training accidents with Terrorist attacks or any other disimilar subject, the point is the accident noteworthy enough for a stand-alone article on its own merits. It clearly isnt, we dont compare "notability" between unrelated subjects. Most of the subjects you mention I fail to get the connection as far as I know no Israeli civilians were involved or even terrorists, it was just an accident during a training flight. Military training is risky stuff. Not sure what accidents in August 2017 have to do with it, the date or time of year is not relevant, nationality of the victims is not relevant. Being military is relevant as civilian aircraft dont normally fly through the mountains in the dark at low level using night vision equipment. A large civilian aircraft that flies into a mountain with fatalties would be noteworthy. MilborneOne (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to have to say this but if you are not familiar with the policy involved then you should not be supporting deletion of an article, especially as an admin. The policy involved is WP:NOTNEWS - it is the same for military plane crashes and terrorist attacks (in Israel or elsewhere). The policy says For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia and this is the point that is most often discussed at AfD. The number of military plane crashes per year relative to the number of terrorist attacks is relevant, as anyone who has previously participated in these AfDs would be aware of, because a military plane crash is not "routine news" - that is why I decided to accept the draft. Otherwise this topic easily passes WP:GNG and I don't think there is any policy-based justification to support deletion here.SeraphWiki (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well clearly we are not on the same wavelength but thanks for for your arguments using NOTNEWS as it clearly calls for deletion as military aircraft crashes during training comes under the "routine news" and has no persistance. (And please dont comment on the competence of others it is not clever) MilborneOne (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * For example the 2010 IAF Sikorsky CH-53 crash was recreated after deletion and during the second deletion discussion many editors voted to keep Articles for deletion/2010 IAF Sikorsky CH-53 crash. We have many other similar articles - so many that there is a navbox for them: Aviation accidents and incidents in 2015 These nominations are perennial and there is no consensus for deletion of these articles, it should really be clarified that nominations based on the WP:AIRCRASH essay - are starting to be disruptive because it is a waste of the community's time to go over the same issues everytime. Time and time again these articles have been nominated as NOTNEWS and the AfDs have closed keep or no consensus for deletion.SeraphWiki (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Additionally I would very much appreciate it if you would willingly strike your comment that "it was just an accident during a training flight." Nine members of the United States military died in that accident and you are right, it does not seem like we are on the same wavelength about that. This is not the first time I have wondered if editors are simply unaware that these discussions may be read by persons unfamiliar with "Wikispeak" - family members, or other service members, and what it would sound like to them = "just an accident" "routine news" "no relevance to it being noteworthy"... I hope these views don't reflect the views of most of the trusted members of community, but all I can say is they certainly don't reflect mine. SeraphWiki (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "What it would sound to them" is not a valid argument to keep or delete, either way, and please also bear in mind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as well as WP:ONLYESSAY. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets GNG. Has LASTING coverage, e.g. -  . AIRCRASH is a good essay - but military crashes of large aircraft with many crew/passengers are sometimes not pigeonholed to the criteria there.Icewhiz (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. "Lasting" coverage is not beyond either incidental mentions of "this happened in the past" and/or WP:PRIMARY sources which do not confer notability. It is long-standing consensus that military aircraft accidents are held to a higher bar than other aircraft crashes. This was tragic, but it does not rise to the standard that is held for these kind of accidents. As for the WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments - there are, indeed, many other articles on non-notable crashes that should be deleted or merged, but their existiance does not mean we cannot delete articles on non-notasble subjects. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't apply if there have already been AfDs that have closed keep or no consensus to delete. It is not a long-standing consensus that military aircraft are held to a higher bar- this issue has already been discussed and resolved by countless previous AfDs about military aviation accidents which have closed keep or no consensus, at least one nomiated by the same nominator with User:MilborneOne commenting there also military aircraft accidents tend not to be notable:


 * Articles for deletion/2015 Pakistan Army Mil Mi-17 crash
 * Articles for deletion/2015 Syrian Air Force An-26 crash
 * Articles for deletion/2010 IAF Sikorsky CH-53 crash
 * Not ok - completely unacceptable to use AfD to circumvent the community's notability guidelines, including WP:GNG to impose a project-specific guideline that has not been approved by the community. If you guys want to apply this, do it the right way and see whether there is actually a consensus for a new notability guideline. Until then, these nominations should stop. This has been discussed by the community multiple times, over a period of years. Nominating articles for deletion based on WP:AIRCRASH guidelines (like whether any of the passengers were "notable" as the nom. himself said) is at this point as disruptive as nominating because you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. SeraphWiki (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the only IDONTLIKEIT here is coming from you. But since it's obvious we're each in our own opinion exceding stiff and strong, I'll step away from the elephant. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not DONTLIKEIT to point out that this has been going on for at least eight years and that many editors in the community don't agree that military aviation accidents are less notable than other types of aviation accidents. If Wikiproject Aviation wants to have a community discussion about a new NAVIATION that's good, I support that, we probably need it. One of the things that will most likely be discussed is this military aviation accident issue - an essay is written by one person, it is not a guideline, it is not a policy, it has not gone through the same process or community discussion required for guidelines or policies and no editor is required to follow its recommendations to keep their work from being deleted. SeraphWiki (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Bushranger's !vote summarizes the majority of my views on Wikipedia's problem with tragic news stories; his "this happened in the past" comment where editors fail or simply ignore what a passing mention applies not only to this article but to dozens of others with the same issues. Sure, other crap exists, but that is more of a reflection of some (too many) editors falling into the dark and dreary clutches of recentism even though they should know better.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment If the application of NOTNEWS is this inconsistent we would be better off with more specific guidelines - the practice is that we keep articles like 2016 Jerusalem shooting attack - no one who died in this incident was notable and the casualty figure was lower - but this article is kept because it is defended by Pro-Israel editors and we delete articles where members of the US military died (nine in this case, a high number for an aviation accident) because very few editors turn up to support it.
 * Instead of placing that burden on editors to participate in multiple long, repetitive AfDs it is past time to attempt to hammer out a real consensus about this policy. Multiple AfD discussion about NOTNEWS have closed no consensus - at this point the only standard for whether an article is kept is whether enough editors show up to force a no consensus close.
 * Notability can not be inherited from notability of the passengers and the nominator deserves a trout.
 * We need a standard policy that reflects community consensus which editors and reviewers can apply before wasting their time on creating articles and repetitive, controversial AfDs that are difficult to close. OTHERSTUFF exists is no excuse for this, its getting to a point where it is both disruptive and a drain on the community's resources. SeraphWiki (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I shall re-nominate it forthwith as it clearly fails all the criteria used to nominate this article--Petebutt (talk) 10:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We already have consensus!! Military accidents are NOT NOTABLE in their own right!!--Petebutt (talk) 10:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There are enough sources for this accident that it passes notability - notability is based on sources. It was covered in multiple news stories at the time, and has since been covered in books also  so neither WP:GNG nor WP:NOTNEWS are valid grounds for deletion. Being a military accident is certainly not valid grounds to nominate an article for deletion without a WP:BEFORE check.SeraphWiki (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -- an unfortunate, but unremarkable incident. No lasting significance or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2018 (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.