Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Kavatshi Airlines Antonov An-26B 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

2005 Kavatshi Airlines Antonov An-26B crash

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Accident doesn't demonstrate needed notability for an article. Fails the general notability guideline, the event criteria, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and doesn't demonstrate any lasting effects. Whilst the event does have coverage (minimal), the majority of them are in french with all of them being short stories. I haven't been able to find any coverage post-2005 involving this accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation,  and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Notability issue needs more attention. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * •Keep Yet again another Antonov accident that doesnt fail WP:NOTNEWS, an accident with 11 fatalities is not an everyday occurance. Lolzer3000 (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just because an event doesn't fail WP:NOTNEWS doesn't mean it automatically gets a keep. No lasting effects were demonstrated from the accident. It has been 18 years since the accident and the accident has not demonstrated any (long-term) impacts. The event does not have significant nor reliable coverage.
 * Per WP:EVENTCRIT:
 * Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. Event does not fulfill this criteria.
 * Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below). No widespread impact or coverage in diverse sources with no analysis of the accident.
 * Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event. Event has limited coverage.
 * Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Nothing inherently notable about this accident even if tragic.
 * Post-2005, I haven't been able to find any coverage regarding this accident thus failing WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * an accident like this is indefinetly going to fail the 10-year test that many deletion authors go by, no accident has continued coverage over 19 years. Lolzer3000 (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For sure no accident will have continued coverage for over 19 years but an accident should at least be mentioned/ talked about for at least a year especially for an accident with that many fatalities. All news sources are primary sources which means it is impossible to source reliable secondary sources. All news sources only state the circumstances of the accident without any analysis of the accident failing WP:INDEPTH.
 * The event fails the general notability guidelines as it has no significant coverage and no reliable secondary sources. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreeable here, i can only find a singular source covering it 6 days later, linked below, there is an in depth summary in 2005 in aviation so the general deletion of the article itself wouldnt be a problem because the information is still pertained in the summary.
 * (the mentioned link) Lolzer3000 (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla  Ohhhhhh, no! 18:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Are you in favour of the deletion? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete No evidence of continued or widespread coverage that would assist in meeting EVENTCRIT. No evidence of meeting GNG. Triptothecottage (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Mention it in a list of aircraft crashes instead. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 17:21, 2 June 2024 (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.