Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Pakistan Army Mil Mi-17 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The result was   Withdrawn by nominator The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 Pakistan Army Mil Mi-17 crash

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Crash of military aircraft with fewer than ten deaths, including some non-notable foreign nationals, fails the standard WP:AIRCRASH criteria for an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  20:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Accidents of military aircraft are generally not notable.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 20:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The aircraft was being used to transport civilians and not in a military capacity. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:AIRCRASH: "Accidents involving light aircraft and military aircraft are mostly non-notable." it doesn't make any difference 331dot, it was a military aircraft flying in a militaristic environment. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources confirm that the crash killed two foreign ambassadors to Pakistan. Per WP:EVENTCRIT, "events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources", which is the case. Brandmeistertalk  20:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Are they covered widely in diverse sources? Will anyone recall this crash in a week's time?  Will anything be changed as a result of this crash?  This is an encyclopedia, and this article squarely fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:AIRCRASH.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They do: Time, Reuters, CNN, NY Times, Daily Mail, Bangkok Post, RIA Novosti, etc. I also generally frown upon military accidents, but this is an exception in my opinion. Just like 1996 Croatia USAF CT-43 crash, for instance where Ron Brown and the likes died. An average person somewhere in the US or elsewhere may forget this in a week's time, but encyclopedia is not an average person. Brandmeistertalk  21:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You failed to properly answer the second and third questions. Ron Brown has his own article and is thus notable per Wikipedia guidelines.  No-one onboard this minor military crash has an article. WP:AIRCRASH, widely agreed, therefore suggests this shouldn't be a standalone article.  Hey, it doesn't mean it can't be included somewhere else, like in a list of military accidents in Pakistan or something....   The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They don't have articles because non-English-speakers are disproportionately under-represented here, not because they lack notability in the sense of the GNG. It is not self-evident (because it is not true) that anyone who is notable must already have their own article. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Per AIRCRASH: "the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim)," The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - The incident is widely reported and appears significant on the basis of current reporting. We can delete the article later if that proves not to be the case. This nomination appears to be in bad faith - the nominator is !voting against this at ITN/C on the basis that the possibly-notable victims (ambassadors from one non-English speaking country to another) cannot be notable because they do not have articles. This is an absurd position, and calling for further deletions in the same connection will merely entrench our systemic bias. I'd call on any passing admin to consider closing this nomination speedily to minimise the disruption to the ITN process, but I don't insist. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I completely refute the bad faith accusation. It fails to meet the criteria established in WP:AIRCRASH.  I am not circumventing anything, I am merely running the process correctly, which means to say that an article shouldn't be given a period of grace, just to get onto the main page, just to be deleted immediately afterwards because it clearly fails to meet long-established norms required for a standalone article.  If you don't like it, write the articles about the individuals killed in the crash.  Otherwise, change WP:AIRCRASH.  In any case, take you accusations of bad faith and keep them in a special place where only you know.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I note your objection. I would have been more convinced if you had not tried to dismiss my disagreement with you earlier as the result of my having a bad day. I still say you're wrong. And I believe you reject the accusation. You aren't doing much of a job of refuting it. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't care about how convinced you are. We use guidelines etc to help.  WP:AIRCRASH says "the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim)," is needed to keep an article.  If you want to change AIRCRASH, please do so.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep for now, no prejudice to another nomination after the crash's investigation. It is premature to conclude that this will not result in long-lasting coverage or significant changes in aircraft procedures/processes. The individuals here are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages even before this event, and the aircraft was acting as a civilian transport during this incident, so the criteria in WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS are met here. I wouldn't go so far as to say this nomination was made in bad faith - there are some legitimate questions here. Although it is disrupting to an otherwise postable event. Mamyles (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're asserting the individuals in question should have their own articles, can you demonstrate why? Can you create these articles?  If you do, and they meet WP:N, no problems and this AFD goes away.  Obviously.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The notability of ambassadors was discussed here and summarized into this essay.
 * In a nutshell, any ambassador or head of mission is considered to satisfy notability guidelines if there is a corresponding relations article between the two countries. That is true for all four ambassadors involved: Norway–Pakistan relations, Pakistan–Philippines relations, Pakistan–Poland relations, and Netherlands–Pakistan relations. Mamyles (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell, and per the essay you're quoting: surely you can write an article about at least one of the dead ambassadors? We have a deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In another nutshell, the wording of the Wikipedia guideline (AIRCRASH): "the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim)" The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a work in progress. That an article does not yet exist does not indicate an individual is not notable: that must be determined by the presence of reliable sources. As an aside, WP:AIRCRASH is an essay and not a guideline, but I agree that its criteria are reasonable. Mamyles (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. A crash involving notable foreign government officials is notable. Many ambassadors have articles which suggests that being an ambassador merits an article, even if the ones in this crash don't yet have them(likely due to systemic bias issues, as AlexT suggests). 331dot (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:AIRCRASH: "the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim)," please show me the articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will simply note that AIRCRASH states "This page provides advice on article content. It contains the opinions of one or more WikiProjects regarding the content of articles within their area of interest. This advice is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline". 331dot (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And all I've asked, many times, is for one you supporters to supply evidence that one of the individuals onboard is actually notable per WP:N.  They were flying somewhere to open a ski-lift.  We're really pushing the boundaries here if we think a handful of minor-minor foreigners, none of whom have Wikipedia articles per WP:N, in a minor crash in a military aircraft in Pakistan is worth an article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Leif Holger Larsen has an article now, which seems to be what TRM has asked for. So does that mean this AFD can "go away" as he has stated in this discussion? Everymorning   talk  21:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It certainly does. I'm grateful to you for doing it, unlike the bad faith commentators above, all of whom could take a leaf out of your book and try to improve the encyclopaedia.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I didn't create the article, I just stumbled upon it when Googling Larsen. Everymorning   talk  21:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I find 331dot's argument compelling: that being an ambassador merits an article, even if the ones in this crash don't yet have them (emphasis added). This would meet the WP:AIRCRASH criterion - note that the wording "the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia" does not require that the individual in question actually has their own biography page right now, merely that they should be of sufficient notability to merit one. The determining factor here is whether they are notable enough for a biography, not that a biography should exist. Prioryman (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That is, of course, nonsense. That an ambassador merits an article per se is nonsense.  But thankfully it's a moot point as one of the Norwegians is now up in lights so job done.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn now a "notable" individual killed in the crash has an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: WP:AIRCRASH doesn't apply to stand-alone crash articles like this one. As it says:


 * - Ahunt (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. No wonder I hate AIRCRASH so much.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2015 (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.