Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Services Air Airbus A310-300 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 keep. (non-admin closure) SST  flyer  07:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

2015 Services Air Airbus A310-300 crash

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS. Cargo plane crashes are also very common, and in the Congo VERY COMMON, and aren't usually notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 *  Keep  Kristijh (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. passes WP:GNG A combination of factors which were probably preventable causing multiple non-crew casualties.--Petebutt (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep major airliner crashes killing people on the ground; well covered event. The fact it happens in a place where crashes (usually of smaller planes without casualties) are more common isn't relevant. Common occurrences can be notable - we cover eruptions at volcanoes, where most eruptions happen at volcanoes, and don't wait for one to occur in the middle of some major city to be notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Quite a few fatalities, well covered, also the crash had quite a few major effects on the area and on airlines in the area. Also, the plane was very large. Beejsterb (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - cargo aircraft crash ≠ lack of notability. Eight ground casualties adds weight to case for notability. Mjroots (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2016 (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.