Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Romanian Air Force IAR-330 SOCAT 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 defer per 's 11:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC) comment.  Daniel  03:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

2007 Romanian Air Force IAR-330 SOCAT crash

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Though this certainly was a tragic event for the families and personnel involved, the crash of a single military helicotper on a training flight with no other mitigating factors may qualify as a news story in Romania, but it is not notable in an encyclopedic sense, and it doesn't meet the Project's proposed notability guidelines. I hate to say it, but training accidents happen all the time, and unless there are unusual circumstances involved, it just doesn't rise to the level of encyclpedic notability.  AK Radecki Speaketh  18:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination -- Dougie WII 18:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Why the article is notable for Romania, as well as Romanian Aviation:
 * 1. The Romanian Ministry of Defense invested over 50 million dollars in a modernisation program for the IAR 330 in cooperation with Elbit Systems. The program started in 1998 and ended in 2005 (2 years ago). So, we have a helicopter crashed after 2 years of its modernization. Was this program a waste of money? - I think this covers a part of the WPAVIATION notability guidelines, Accidents are generally not notable unless unusual circumstances are involved ... results in downstream changes to the industry or procedures. sourced on Romanian Air Force official site


 * 2. The Romanian Air Force attack helicopter fleet currently consists of 23 IAR 330 SOCAT aircraft (yesterday consisted of 24). That means we lost 5% of our attack helicopter fleet during peacetime. Also, this covers another part of the WPAVIATION notability guidelines - It is the first crash of a particular type of aircraft. Realitatea, Romania operates 24 IAR 330 SOCAT attack helicopters


 * 3. We have one of the most experienced Romanian military pilots dead in the crash (a helicopter squadron commander with over 2,700 flying hours, of which 800 were made on this type of aircraft) - as per WPAVIATION notability guidelines, Accidents are generally not notable unless unusual circumstances are involved, notable people are involved... Romanian National Television, Antena 3, Helicopter crashed in Argeş County, killing three people, including commander Bucur Nicolae.

This is it for now, but I will add things here as soon as I will have more informations. --Eurocopter tigre 18:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC) -
 * 4. The aircraft was lost in suspicious conditions, as the weather was perfect and it didn't send any SOS signals to the military air traffic control authorities. Sources mentioned above at #3 are available for this section also.


 * Comment: There are currently many similar articles on wikipedia, which are not notable worldwide: 2007 Hukou F-5F crash, 2007 Shatoy Mi-8 crash, 2007 Blue Angels South Carolina crash. --Eurocopter tigre 21:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - the problem is, none of those arguments are arguments from guidelines. And, none of the material in those arguments is included in the article. This really seems like something that is better covered in the text of the article on the actual helicopter. And, all these arguments are OR unless you cite sources.  AK Radecki Speaketh  18:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Further comment - you've added sources above, yes, but they're all in Romanian. Are there any English sources? WP:V doesn't mandate english sources, but it recommends them, and the lack of English sources suggests lack of wider notability. And how is Bucur Nicolae notable? I don't see a WP article on him, and 2700 hours really isn't a lot (wouldn't even get you in the door at most Part 135 operators).  AK Radecki Speaketh  19:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you telling me that only people who have an article on wikipedia are notable?? --Eurocopter tigre 19:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is a standard we frequently use. Notabiltiy has to be demonstrated somehow, and notability in articles has the same standards. In other words, has or could an article be written about this person? What makes this guy notable? He certainly wounldn't pass WP:BIO. If you think 2700 hours makes someone notable, you need to think again. As I said before, with that little time, there's not a single medevec operator, or fire department who would hire him (usually, min time is 3,000 hours, with 5,000 preferred). Since that's the only information you've provided how else are we to evaluate his notability?  AK Radecki Speaketh  20:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You didn't read my comments carrefully, as i sad at the beginning:Why the article is notable for Romania, as well as Romanian Aviation:. 2,700 flying hours is quite much for the RoAF, which suffered a severe lack of funds after the 1989 revolution, until late 1990s. Also, he was an attack helicopter squadron commander (the RoAF currently operates two attack helicopters squadrons). So, you can't say a person who commands half of an attack helicopter fleet of an air force isn't notable for that air force/country. --Eurocopter tigre 21:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did. We don't have separate notability standards for Romania. We also don't have articles for squandron commanders.  AK Radecki Speaketh  21:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But not all the air forces have the same size, therefore such an accident wouldn't be notable for the US Air Force for example, but it would be notable for Romanian Air Force. Anyway, how about arguments #1&2? --Eurocopter tigre 21:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me talk about argument #1&2, #1 is pure speculation since we don't know what caused the accident it's irrelevant who modernized the helicopter and how much money were spent, even if the cause is technical it's still not encyclopedical info, Wikipedia is not to be used to analyze ROI #2 so now Romania has 23 attack helicopters instead of 24 -- bid deal! So if one of the 23 helicopters loses a wheel or something and will remain only 22 operational, will we need an article for that, what if Romania buys a helicopter and has again 24, do we write an article about that too? -- AdrianTM 21:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh Adrian, I think you misunderstood something, as the guideline is very clear in this case: It is the first crash of a particular type of aircraft. --Eurocopter tigre 22:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, not it isn't. This is just a license-built Aérospatiale Puma, and they have crashed before.  AK Radecki Speaketh  22:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought too, and what do you mean by "type of aircraft" if you update electronics it becomes another type? -- AdrianTM 22:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, the Aerospatiale Puma is an Utility helicopter, while the IAR 330 SOCAT is a particular type of attack helicopter. It is also listed in the Romanian Air Force inventory as a particular type of aircraft - it is not considered a variant of the basic IAR 330. --Eurocopter tigre 22:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, type has very specific meaning in aviation, and the IAR-330 SOCAT is the same type. A licensed-built version of the Puma is still a Puma. If there are modifications, then it is a variant. It only becomes a different type when the design is so substantially modified that it is in all ways a different helicopter. This ain't.  AK Radecki Speaketh  22:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This crash happened yesterday. Until further information can be obtained, it's probably impossible to say whether this crash is notable or not. I suggest delete but with no prejudice to recreation should any info come out to make it notable (eg. more info on the "suspicious circumtances"} Tx17777 19:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur - Very well stated - delete with no prejudice against recreation. - BillCJ 20:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable accident, the pilot while experimented is not a notable person (or celebrity) and the rest are mere speculations, the circumstances are "suspect", but what happens if the forensics reveal the causes and they are no longer "suspect", will we delete the article then? -- AdrianTM 19:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait -- I'm not sure this is a valid option in an Afd, but it looks like this is still a developing event, and so it's too early to tell whether it's really notable or not. In the meantime, I think it's worth giving User:Eurocopter tigre time to develop the article, and make his case -- he's put quite a bit of work and heart into it (and, I must confess, I lent a bit of a hand), so what's the rush?  Turgidson 19:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are some sources in english: --Eurocopter tigre 20:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-11/08/content_7029877.htm - China
 * http://www.mediafax.ro/engleza/helicopter-crashes-central-romanian-county-with-three-people-on-.html?6966;1029489 - Romania
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Stifle (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete — While Eurocopter tigre makes a good argument, I do have something to say.
 * 1) If this incident is important to Romania’s IAR 330 program, it could be mentioned in the IAR 300 page.
 * 2) First crash for an aircraft is not necessarily notable.
 * 3) If the pilots are notable, a new page should be made about them.
 * 4) The only reason it is suspicious is because there hasn’t been an investigation yet.

Also, the other pages mentioned (2007 Hukou F-5F crash, 2007 Shatoy Mi-8 crash, 2007 Blue Angels South Carolina crash) are definitively more notable. The first resulted in five fatalities, and it occurred during an international military exercise. The second involved 20 fatalities, and the third occurred during an air show. – Zntrip 00:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Romanian Air Force  I'm sorry when people die in an accident.  And I understand, of course, that when news breaks out, there is a feeling of urgency to memorialize it.  But tragic accidents happen every day, and most don't interrupt the steady march of history.  This is fine within an article about the Romanian Air Force or about the IAR-330, but it doesn't merit its own individual article.  Mandsford 01:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep for the time being, for the reasons outlined by Eurocopter tigre. If the article doesn't expand much beyond the present state, consider merging to the IAR 330 article, but let's not kill this just yet. Who knows, it could turn into this. Biruitorul 02:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Compromise: As the opinions are very different, some want to keep it, others want to merge it, others want to delete it, I propose the following compromise - Give me 31 days, until the investigation is over, to see if I have enough sources to expand properly this article (maybe the results of the investigations will make this even more notable). If not, I will agree with the deletion/merging of the article. Thoughts? --Eurocopter tigre 11:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support compromise: Sounds like a good compromise to me — along the lines I was proposing above: wait and see, but with a reasonable yet definite upper bound (1 month sounds just about right). This loks like a borderline case to me, but I would err on the side of caution, and giving editors who want to develop an article that has some potential the chance to do it.  After all, what's the rush, and what does it cost to keep an article like this one for a while, to see how it goes?  I think it's more important to encourage good-faith, enthusiastic editors (such as Eurocopter tigre) in their endeavors, while of course providing needed feedback and reality checks, if necessary.   Turgidson 14:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support compromise I think this is reasonable especially that this article is nominated for deletion only for non-notability and somebody worked hard on it (and it's obviously a good faith article) However, I think that in one month substantial info has to show up in order to make this article notable, as it fails this criterion right now. -- AdrianTM 15:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support compromise - per AdrianTM's comments. - BillCJ 17:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support compromise - with a couple of caveats...Tigre actually needs to address this in a month. I've seen cases where promises are made, the time goes by and everyone's forgotten about it. As Adrian says, it fails currently, so I am willing to consider new material/refs in a month, but I don't want to see a month go by and Tigre come up with the same arguments, (that the pilot's notable, or that it's the first of its type, or because Romania is so small). If there is new information that genuinely, without rationalization, supports notability, then I'm all for it.  AK Radecki Speaketh  18:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict -Inserted above) Would the SOCAT fleet being grounded be a first step toward notability? (Non-English source, info per Adrian.) - BillCJ 19:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, i'm not that kind o user. Actually, the hole IAR 330 SOCAT fleet was grounded today until the end of the investigations. I've already find the source, and a new section will be added to the article in the next couple of hours. Alan, please consider closing the AfD whenever you think it should be closed (I prefer closing it today, as everybody seem to agree with the compromise). --Eurocopter tigre 19:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm too involved in the discussion here. There's a general rule that if you're involved, you don't close the discussion. I'll let another admin do it. Oh, BTW, I'm not inclined to see the grounding as notable, it's actually SOP to do so in such cases, as a precaution, in case there's a systemic finding.  AK Radecki Speaketh  01:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support compromise - this was my initial idea too, but I didn't want to offend the creator by calling for it. Let's wait a month, then reconsider in more dispassionate terms. Biruitorul 02:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support compromise — With conditions set by Akradecki. – Zntrip 03:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions.   — FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  13:09, 12 November 2007 (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.