Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 748 Air Services HS 748 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   no consensus.  Sandstein  08:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

2014 748 Air Services HS 748 crash

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was created by blocked user and is of questionable notability


 * Delete - This article was created by a blocked user who is a sock puppet of Ryan kirkpatrick, who is banned from the Wikipedia community and has no place editing or creating articles. Additionally, the article fails to meet WP:GNG Dfadden (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article meets WP:GNG with significant coverage from multiple major sources independent of the subject (non-European/American does not preclude a source from being major or reliable), and additionally meets WP:AIRCRASH: the HS748 is not light, with MTOW 21092kg, and there was one fatality. Though perhaps we need to re-create the article and merge this content, if the community feels some need to wash off the banned user's influence. (Incidentally, if banned users are faster than others at creating articles about emerging significant events, such a policy structure would mean these users can cause trouble at our expense based on just our own rules - which seems irrational and unnecessary, WP:IAR) Leondz (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:AIRCRASH does not automatically imply an accident warrants a stand alone article just because the aircraft is above a given MTOW and involved loss of life. Likewise WP:GNG cannot be established based on newspaper articles alone - with the exception of the Aviation Herald, the sources are tabloid and web news articles reporting the same limited facts. The accident is notable enough for perhaps a mention in airport or aircraft type article, but there is little to justify a full article. Dfadden (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Cf. "web news articles" Don't most news articles cited these days point to web sources? I don't suppose many en.wp users have access to the print versions, nor would the references be useful to readers when compared with web links. The point is, choice of media is not an intrinsic detractor of source quality. Leondz (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - If this article is suspected as being created by a banned user then it should be sent to speedy deletion under WP:G5. There is no need for a full AfD debate here. - Ahunt (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Now has substantial edits by others, unfortunately Leondz (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep first and deadliest plane crash in the country, substantial edits by other users and meets WP:AIRCRASH requirements. 144.85.160.206 talk 13:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems to fulfil WP:AIRCRASH criteria (see user Leondz's comment above). Substantial edits by non-problematic users means that WP:G5 does not apply (see user 144.85.160.206 comment above). Even if there was a conflict of rules, keeping the article would be common sense (see Leondz's comment, WP:BURO, WP:COMMON). Finnusertop (talk 5:57, 19 Februay 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to 2014 in aviation over redirect. One fatality during an irregular cargo flight and no hull loss (at least according to the article). Btw, when on December 26 last year an Antonov An-12 cargo aircraft crashed, killing all nine people aboard, I was thinking about the relevant article, but changed my mind too (but the grief is understandable anyway). Brandmeistertalk   16:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Great example for contrast. Minor correction: this HS748 crash did result in hull loss (updated). Subjectively the An-12 incident mentioned seems worse, though it was not widely reported in English, and I don't think it satisfied WP:GNG as a result. It's worth adding that old Russian airplanes crashing in Russia are not very notable - I think the historical context here adds to its notability, but they are very similar crashes from some perspectives. Leondz (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, Aviation Herald confirms hull loss, I'll wait a bit. Brandmeistertalk  21:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - on balance, this should be kept as it is the first commercial aviation accident in South Sudan. I realise that it was created in violation of WP:CBAN, but unless we WP:IAR re attribution, deleting and recreating minus the history is not going to be an option. An alternative would be for an editor in good standing to create their own version in a sandbox, at which point this article can be deleted and the new article moved in its place. Mjroots (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete concur with Dfadden. Not notable, unscheduled cargo flight, only the crew involved. Not sure about the sockpuppet, if it was kirkpatrick it would be obvious from the initial posted version. From what I can see it was probably written by a non native english speaker (south sudanese?), and definitely NOT Kirkpatrick !!--Petebutt (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Article history log shows page created by User:BWYM, a confirmed kirkpatrick sock. Most other significant edits seem to be by Leondz, in good faith (despite our differences of opinion on notability) who argues against speedy deletion G5 because it has been "unfortunately" expanded by others who did not detect the sock.


 * I wish I had known this before I had marked the page as patrolled and added a category for this. Mea culpa.  Delete this article as being created by a banned user, and then someone else can start it again if we really need it.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Article history log shows page created by User:BWYM, a confirmed kirkpatrick sock. Most other significant edits seem to be by Leondz, in good faith (despite our differences of opinion on notability) who argues against speedy deletion G5 because it has been "unfortunately" expanded by others who did not detect the sock.


 * Delete a G5 Speedy is arguably still valid because nobody else actually added any fresh info - they were just tweaking what was already there - until the snippet about it being a hull loss was added after the AfD was opened. Leaving that aside, the keep !votes are based on the widely-discredited AIRCRASH, a quite-small flurry of news reports that has already died down (and reporting that something has happened does equate to significant coverage), and it being the first and deadliest accident in South Sudan, with one person killed. Being first doesn't make it notable and strictly speaking it isn't the first, as there was the accidental shooting-down of a helicopter in 2012. The accident is already mentioned in the type article and this article doesn't add any understanding of the event over and above what is mentioned there - a stand-alone article isn't warranted, no matter who created it. YSSYguy (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:N. This is just a news story. FonEengIneeR7  talk 09:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:EVENT. Cargo plane crashes are very common and there is nothing notable about this one....William 22:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS as there is no likely lasting impact on regulation or procedures.--Charles (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 22 February 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.