Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Syrian Air Force An-26 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.  MBisanz  talk 17:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

2015 Syrian Air Force An-26 crash

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Military aircraft crashes are non-notable, being an operational hazard, unless there is another reason for notability, such as a notable passenger or civilians killed on the ground. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG etc.. Petebutt (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait Easily meets GNG due to sheer amount of coverage. Crashes leading to large losses of life on Military Airplanes usually warrants coverage, despite there being an essay (WP:AIRCRASH) suggesting otherwise.  From last year alone:  2014 Armenian Mil Mi-24 shootdown, 2014 Algeria Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash, 2014 Lao People's Liberation Army Air Force An-74 crash, Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 shoot-down


 * It does not seem that the essay reflects the consensus on this matter. It does not seem that there is prolonged coverage of the issue, but it being the early days of the investigation, I would favor waiting to see if this is a case of WP:NOTNEWS or if the situation develops into something that can stand on its own.


 * Note: This position is reflected as part of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE section of WP:EVENTS "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." Acebulf (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for now, rather than "keep, for now". We create articles for things that are notable. We don't create articles about news items and hope they will become notable in the future. At the moment, this is just a news event and so doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. If that changes in the future, editors shouldn't be prevented from re-creating this.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 07:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait While it is true that the occasional crash of a military jet or helicopter killing a couple of crew members during routine operations or training is part of the normal risks of military life (like most automobile accidents or general aviation accidents are in civilian life) and therefore are not noteworthy and do not merit an article, any major military aircraft crash is not routine and is not a normal part of military life. In fact, it is a bit bizarre in my view to assert that any aircraft crash killing 30 or 35 people is somehow not significant regardless of who the plane belonged to. Wikipedia includes numerous articles on major military aircraft crashes worldwide over many years, as anyone can see by sampling the year-by-year aviation accident and incident templates, and with good reason. I note, however, that such crashes in industrialized countries seem to have greater acceptance as meriting Wikipedia articles than those in less developed countries like (in this case) Syria (although Wikipedia has accepted a number of Iranian military crashes that resulted in major loss of life), so it seems that an unspoken double standard may be in play when it comes to first-world and third-world crashes. If 30 to 35 deaths in a single military crash is not significant, how many people would have to die in a military crash to make it significant – 50, 75, 100, 200? It is not clear what criteria should be used for identifying a military crash as major enough to merit an article; while it seems that a jet or helicopter crashing and killing its pilot would be too insignificant to merit an article, it would also seem to be a no-brainer that a death toll of 30 to 35 (in this case) would be significant. I doubt very much that any true "consensus" exists among Wikipedia editors, let alone users, that such a military crash is not a significant event. Mdnavman (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)mdnavman


 * Delete for now. As tragic as the loss of 30 lives is, we aren't a newspaper, and there's no evidence of any significant coverage of this event after January 18th. If lasting coverage occurs, the article can be remade. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: worldwide news coverage. Still over 1000 hits on google news. Although WP is not a newspaper, it has articles about notable events. Consider how we handle AfDs, it's not based on editor sentiment as to whether it is significant enough, but rather on substantial RS coverage. It's the level of RS coverage that we look to not our personal views, or our personal guesses as to "why" it has attracted the coverage. Sander.v.Ginkel (Je suis Charlie) 12:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to your personal view but it remains contrary to WP:NOTNEWS. "Why" is has received coverage is exactly what we are expected to judge.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 13:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: It is not true that Military aircraft crashes are non-notable. If they have worldwide news coverage they are notable. As mentioned above, there exist many articles about Military aircraft crashes. Sander.v.Ginkel (Je suis Charlie) 12:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - the "over 1000 hits" is rather misleading; I clicked the link Sander.v.Ginkel provided, and of the first 100 stories, not one was about the Syrian An-26. I did my own search, for "syrian air force antonov an-26", and got 43 hits, again none about this crash. A couple of news wire stories repeated all over the world with a bit of rewording is not the same as "substantial RS coverage" either. The BBC article used as a source in the article has a total of three sentences about the crash, so again not subtantial. There also exist on my Watchlist many redlinks for deleted articles about fatal military aircraft crashes, so the presence on WP of other articles concerning military aircraft crashes is of no relevance. YSSYguy (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The articles are not all naming the air force antonov an-26. See with an other search many articles about this crash here. And the BBC does have a complete article about the crash. see here Sander.v.Ginkel (Je suis Charlie) 12:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Part of frequent casualties in the ongoing Syrian war, whose total death toll ranges between 127,450 and 286,455. Plus, the loss of a military aircraft in a war is more expectable than of a civilian one. This is unlike Armenian Mil Mi-24 shootdown mentioned above, which is rather outstanding incident in the current Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire violations, while the 2014 Algeria Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash and 2014 Lao People's Liberation Army Air Force An-74 crash occurred during peace time. This crash is already mentioned in 2015 in aviation anyway and could be added to the Casualties of the Syrian Civil War and Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (August 2014–present) as well. Brandmeistertalk  20:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete' military aircraft accidents tend not to be notable particularly in what is an operational flight, I cant see anything unusual in this one. MilborneOne (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete' It's not true that military aircraft crashes are unnoticeable, but this article is poorly written and sourced, delete for now, and when "more detailed" information comes out, remake it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ueutyi (talk • contribs) 06:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Poorly written and sourced articles should be tagged and not deleted. MFriedman (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Per Brandmeister. It also has not even made the world news outlets. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Read above, for instance the BBC does have a article about the crash. see here MFriedman (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep I disagree with the logic that the article should be recreated later if more information surfaces. The information in this article is interesting, if not useful, and there are plenty of references to add more information if an editor with time comes upon this. Mamyles (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Despite what Libertarian12111971 stated above, this crash has made the world news outlets, and has been covered by reliable sources. One only needs to look at the references in the article to see that that is the case. Regardless, though it's not a policy the comparative lack of coverage of incidents that occur in non-western countries really shouldn't influence whether articles on such matters are kept (WP:Global perspective). Nevertheless, the article is well sourced to reliable news sources, and the question as to whether the aircraft was in fact shot down and the number killed in this incident makes it more notable than most incidents involving shootdowns of military aircrafts during conflicts, most of which have involved fighter jets and result in few casualties.--Tdl1060 (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Involves death and is notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.229.76.11 (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is rough and needs work, but that can be fixed. The fact remains 37 souls deceased and an aircraft torn to pieces in a possible shoot down. Samf4u (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per above - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  20:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In this day and age just about any crash of any transport vehicle will generate media coverage. It isn't facts that decide notability, nor is it that people have died - death has never been a criterion for notability on Wikipedia - it is the amount of coverage of said facts. The recent ATR 72 crash is notable; there has been a lot of outside coverage and said coverage continues. This crash is not notable - there wasn't much coverage when it happened and such as there was only lasted a day or two. YSSYguy (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Certainly facts help determine notability. The fact that this is a hull loss incident and may be a shoot down by enemy combatants increases its notability. Human fatalities as a criterion for notability is listed 4 times here: WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. This incident is covered by several independent and verifiable sources. It doesn't matter how long the coverage lasted: Notability is not temporary. Even if there were not "enough" coverage no can deny it happened. Samf4u (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're mixing elements of that essay up. And it's an essay, not a policy, or even a guideline. It enjoys support among the members of that Wikiproject but it remain a personal essay for our purposes here. Even so, the essay suggests that "Accidents involving light aircraft and military aircraft are mostly non-notable" and the "hull loss" provisions relate to civilian airliners. You're misreading WP:NOTTEMP too - this still fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT and so wasn't notable to begin with; whether notability is temporary or not is moot.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: Crash has worldwide coverage, also important news sources like the BBC. And as Samf4u says: 37 souls deceased and an aircraft torn to pieces in a possible shoot down. MFriedman (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In a speedy search I found many articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31... and there are more. Do we realy need more coverage? MFriedman (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. As pointed out, the 000's of hits claim is misleading. We've established there is coverage; what we need to establish is whether that coverage verifies "enduring notability" rather than just short-term "this happened yesterday" stuff. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." (WP:NOTNEWS).  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 21:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But if you continue the sentence they name examples with things that are in the news every day like: routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities. This crash is not something like this. Sander.v.Ginkel (Je suis Charlie) 10:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I opened ten of the 31 links above at random - six were the same Reuters story, one was Agence France Press and one AAP. Two were unattributed, but one looked the same as the Reuters story and the other looked the same as the AFP story. That is not in-depth discussion of the subject. YSSYguy (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think he didn't want to make the point that those articles have in-depth discussion, but that the topic has been reported by many, most of them reliable, news sources worldwide. Sander.v.Ginkel (Je suis Charlie) 10:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: The article exist in 5 other languages. Usually this isn't the case for unnotable events. Sander.v.Ginkel (Je suis Charlie) 10:31, 10 February 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.