Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Nature Air Cessna 208 Caravan 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. Editors disagree about whether this crash is notable according to either general or special notability criteria.  Sandstein  21:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

2017 Nature Air Cessna 208 Caravan crash

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tragic but not notable aviation accident. WP:NOTNEWS applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Costa Rica-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment (note: article creator): Seems too soon to nominate for deletion, but I acknowledge there are editors who are more familiar with aviation-related article standards than me. I created this article because I saw several other articles at Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2017 about accidents with fewer fatalities, and assumed this event was also notable. Seems there should be more other articles nominated for deletion, if this one get deleted... or I am not understanding eligibility criteria for articles about aviation incidents. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning towards keep per WP:GNG. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * KEEP Don't all fatal aviation accidents have articles?  Why would someone want this one removed?? Donaldd23 (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, they do not. Fatal aviation accidents have standalone articles, as a rule, when: 1. procedures or regulations were altered as a result of the crash; 2. a Wikinotable (bluelinked) person was killed; or 3. it gains unusual WP:PERSISTENCE in media; these are especially important when a small aircraft (<12500 lb gros weight) is involved. None of those apply here. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , what is the source of this "rule", or is it just an opinion? Thanks, WWGB (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * it's very long-standing consensus as partially codified in WP:AIRCRASH, which is based on the Federal Aviation Administration's certification requirements for aircraft (12,500lb is the cutoff point between "small" i.e. GA and "large" i.e. airliner aircraft). - The Bushranger One ping only 02:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment No if we listed every fatal aviation accident we would have loads listed every day, which is why we only include those that are noteworthy for some reason (as measured by years of consensus) for example they involve somebody notable. In my opinion the tipping point is if this was a scheduled service or just a charter. If it was a chartered flight then it is not noteworthy which looks like the case here but just waiting for more info before I vote one way or another. MilborneOne (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: Any fatal aircraft crash typically is newsworthy, especially when most or all on board are killed. I see no reason to delete this article. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * comment - wikipedia is NOT:NEWS so newsworthy does not indicate noteworthy for inclusion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that is not how air-crash notability works, per long consensus (see above), and WP:NOTNEWS. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The above editors are correct, the fact that it is newsworthy does not give it encyclopedic notability. Light aircraft crashes are common enough to be considered WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, absent specific details that make the incident notable.  No evidence of that exists here, and we don't keep Wikipedia articles just on the possibility they could become notable someday. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge to Nature Air. Wikipedia is not the news and not a memorial. A tragic crash, but small aircraft crash rather more regularly than certified airliners do; there is not enough to indicate that this crash is any different than your "standard" small-aircraft crash. Now, that said, it almost certainly should be mentioned in an "Accidents and incidents" section of the article of the airline in question, Nature Air, but it doesn't clear the bar, as things are, for a standalone article, regardless of other stuff. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Changing my !vote to Keep per the accident's having had lasting repercussions on the company, as found by Mjroots below. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete (or merge): Light aircraft accidents are far too numerous to have a separate article for each. Most of these are not notable; media coverage is generally limited to a local news article and possibly some wire service coverage.  This can be covered in the aircraft article (Cessna 208 Caravan) with an entry instead. --Finlayson (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep it passes Notability requirements. Felicia (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * But it fails to meet the policy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. - Ahunt (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete (or merge): Just another light aircraft accident, no more notable than a car or bus crash. These happen every day worldwide and are WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. In this case there is no indication this will result in any lasting effects beyond the deaths of the people involved; no changes to procedures, no Airworthiness Directives, no lasting effects of any other kind and no deaths of any people notable enough to have a biography on Wikipedia. The policy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies.- Ahunt (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - this accident can be adequately covered in the article on the airline. Unless a wikinotable person is involved, an accident such as this is almost always going to be below the threshold of notability. Mjroots (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep for now - If the article has not been fleshed out in the near future, it may be appropriate to merge it, but it seems to be notable and should be kept for now while there is clearly a significant interest in it. The Jade Knight (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Airline crashes with 12 deaths most certainly do not "happen every day worldwide". This was the fourth-deadliest air crash of 2017. Too soon to determine lasting effects on the industry. WP:RAPID. WWGB (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:RAPID does not say that all newly-created articles should be kept. It suggests alternatives such as moving the page to draftspace, which may be more appropriate here until evidence of lasting notability is established.  Alternatively the content could be merged into Nature Air for the time being.  Either are acceptable outcomes under WP:RAPID for a light aircraft accident, which is typically regarded as WP:RUNOFTHEMILL.  A crash resulting in loss of 12 lives is tragic, but like many car or bus accidents with similar loss of life, tragedy doesn't bestow encyclopedic notability on its own.  Shelbystripes (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - as WWGB mentions above this incident was one of the top five deadliest incidents of 2017. Also one of the victims who perished in the crash was related to former Costa Riccan president Laura Chinchilla. The WP:NOTNEWS argument is not appropriate now as with the incident only being hours old it is natural that most of the coverage will be news related. There is plenty of coverage that has not yet been included in the article. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It can be nominated for deletion again if it failed WP:LASTING after few months or years. Raymond3023 (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep at this moment given the coverage, it will take few months to decide whether it failed WP:LASTING. Raymond3023 (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * After re-examining this subject, I am supporting merge to Nature Air and also the below comment of Shelbystripes. If it turns out that the subject passed WP:LASTING, we can have a separate article again. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Light aircraft accidents are not inherently notable. Wikipedia does not exist to create articles now and wait to see if notability exists later, that flips the notability standard on its head. The page barely exists anyway, so there's little harm from deletion; if it turns out notability is WP:LASTING, page could easily be re-created later once notability is established. Deletion is important to avoid setting a bad precedent for future non-notable incidents. Shelbystripes (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, perhaps snowball, at the least, merge.Antonio Super Uber Sexy Martin (wassap?) 16:54, 2 January, 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:AIRCRASH. Non-notable small plane accident. Acebulf (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is a fatal crash of a commercial aircraft. I fully understand not wanting to write articles for every single private/military aircraft crash, but commercial crashes happen infrequently enough to warrant their own articles. Dannythewikiman (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: That is not correct. There have been 206 accidents on this one aircraft type involving 427 fatalities and almost all have been commercial flights. It is a common occurrence, just like car accidents are. - Ahunt (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Commercial aircraft" in this context means one with 12500 lb MTOW or higher, which the Caravan does not have. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't see now anything matching the criteria listed by The Bushranger above. Wykx  (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - We don't have a guideline qualifying the fourth deadliest crash in a given year; the fact a relatively small number died makes this stat a bit misleading. What we have here is a failed attempt to make a news story an encyclopedic entry without any knowledge of in-depth analysis, persistence, or lasting significance. Editors will, inevitably, fall back to their master key: WP:RAPID; however, RAPID works both ways and drawing it in a discussion does not put an automatic postponement on notability. Supposedly this may become notable in the future; that is when you create the article, not before.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Maybe the "We must have an article for every bump and scratch" crowd will finally get the picture! WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL--Petebutt (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, no evidence of significant coverage as required by GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep A charter plane carrying tourists with more than 10 people, all of them were killed. One of them was the cousin of Costa Rica's former president Laura Chinchilla. It is the deadliest plane crash in Costa Rica in decades and it currently stands as the second deadliest in a country where aviation accident is pretty rare. That is not common, in contrast with year 2017 as the safest year in aviation history. Media widely reported this, especially the Spanish. Take some time okay? And we'll see more improvements. PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * you should not make page moves in middle of AFD. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment As per Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, notability is not inherited. The cousin of a former president is not a notable person. Fatal accidents involving light aircraft are very common globally. - Ahunt (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes light aircraft crashes are common "globally". I do realize that this is also a chartered private flight, but as per my arguments above (safest year yet this stands as the second deadliest in a country where aviation accident is rare, based on ASN, flighglobal and news websites), I think it deserves a stand alone article. PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: 2017 was a safe year for jet airline aircraft flying, not light aircraft flying. You are convoluting the two. In my country (Canada) we have fatal light aircraft accidents on average almost every week. In the US, where they have more population and more aircraft, they have fatal light plane accidents on average every day. In a country like Costa Rica, where they have few light aircraft, it happens less often. Antarctica has few light aircraft and few accidents as a result too, but that doesn't mean that every light aircraft crash in Costa Rica is notable. It is quite possible that car accidents are not that common in Costa Rica, but we still don't have a Wikipedia article each one of on them. Why? Because they aren't notable. Most light aircraft accidents result in no changes, no lasting effects beyond the deaths involved, just as most car accidents don't. This accident, while tragic for the deaths involved, seems to be that same case, human error and no lasting effects. Our policy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER exactly addresses why we don't have articles like this and it is a policy, not a guideline. It says "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment But for a country where aircraft accidents rarely occur, even light aircraft crashes, especially with the high number of fatalities, this is notable. Costa Rica rarely sees an event that causes significant number of fatalities. As this route is popular among tourists, this could have affected their tourism industry (U.S media have warned their readers about the dangers of private chartered flights). This accident highlights the danger of privately chartered passenger flights. In addition, most light aircraft crashes are "training flights". This isn't. It's a flight where the passengers pay for the flight. PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "for a country"? Notability is equal for all countries. Though you have indicated that subject may pass WP:GNG, that's why I have voted for merge. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: That approach actually would lead us into a situation where we would not have articles on light aircraft crashes in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, etc because they are commonplace there and not notable, but would have articles on light aircraft accidents in places like Costa Rica, Cuba, Andorra, Lichtenstein, the Vatican, etc, because they have few light aircraft and thus are less common there. User:Raymond3023 is right, notability has to be equal for all countries or it makes for some odd paradoxes across the encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment the article has been moved by PaPa PaPaRoony from 2017 Nature Air Cessna 208 Caravan crash to Nature Air Flight 9916. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've moved it back until the discussion is completed. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * KEEP -- Notable, for the reason it was the ONLY fatal crash in 2017 with paying customers among fatalities, tragically happened on the very last day of the year.83.249.48.72 (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: No it wasn't. You are confusing news reports. There were no fatalities among passenger jet aircraft airlines globally in 2017. There were many non-jet commercial passenger air carrier fatalities, though. The Cessna 208 is not a jet, it is a turboprop. This was just one of the non-jet commercial aircraft fatal crashes. See this article, which explains the stats. Also you can note that writing KEEP in all caps doesn't give it more weight in the final determination at the end of this AFD. - Ahunt (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Consensus needed.
 * Keep: WP:AIRCRASH should not be cited here Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles. What I see is this article meets WP:GNG, WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Given its high death toll, my best guess is there must be some long lasting effects: negative perception of local tourism, operation suspension of the company, mourns in the communities, new regulations, etc. Did you know... that you can talk to Dingruogu? 14:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:ONLYESSAY. Also many "only an essay"s reflect well-established WP:CONSENSUS, which this does, and if an accident is not suitable for inclusion in a type or airline article it fails WP:COMMONSENSE to believe it is suitable for a standalone. As for "there must be some long lasting effects": WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 10:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The use of the aircraft is at least as important as the size. Here, we have a commercial air accident with what i these days a large loss of life. We also have evidence it is a very major disaster by local standards and a government inquiry. For an article created this soon after the event, well, we aren't going to get a better claim to notability. 89.240.130.238 (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTMEMORIAL. If there has been continued coverage it will meet WP:LASTING but right now there is no guarantee that it will meet it. Raymond3023 (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please actually read my comment and/or WP:MEMORIAL. At least one of them does not say what you think it says. I can only guess you're trying to divorce my loss of life comment from its context, in order to pretend I'm saying death in particular numbers is of automatic notability? If so, you're fielding a strawman. 89.240.130.238 (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: Continuing the discussion above. I know WP:ONLYESSAY, but the essay WP:AIRCRASH says "Don't cite me" itself. If you accept its argument, don't cite it. If you do't accept its argument, don't cite it. It's not helpful to cite WP:CONSENSUS and WP:COMMONSENSE here either. If I were voting, I would vote for Keep and just say my common sense is this article is notable. Though I do feel so. Did you know... that you can talk to Dingruogu? 17:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I just read on WP:AIRCRASH "it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting". But we late now and it has been cited often. Raymond3023 (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - the article has been significantly expanded since it as proposed for deletion (does WP:HEY apply?) and there is far more coverage of the event now that is both more numerous and more indebth. Also Costa Rican officials raided the offices of the airline company. This is an exceedingly rare turn of events that does not happen often after an aviation accident or incident. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the reports are still dating to 31 December - 1 January. It might be doing good and there might be chances that it will meet the policies we have mentioned. Right now Nature Air is still too small, maybe a section can be provided if the outcome is to merge. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * KeepHas reliable sources and significant coverage. Bingo bro   (Chat)  05:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge Yes it has the reliable sources, but the coverage is not significant; a whole bunch of news websites carrying the same story and then moving on to the next thing does not add up to significant coverage - that's just the news media version of "keeping up with the Joneses". We can give the crash a good treatment at the Nature Air article and have one previously badly-written article in need of a cleanup that has become half-decent, instead of two smaller badly-written articles in need of a cleanup. The information is not lost and there will be a redirect for the few people who will be looking for information about this light aircraft crash in the future to find it. Otherwise, this is just one more example of this supposed encyclopaedia's gradual transformation into a news aggregator. YSSYguy (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete but list in related articles - as the article says a "privately chartered tourist passenger flight" makes it not noteworthy, if it had been a scheduled passenger flight I would have gone for a keep. MilborneOne (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * But, shouldn't we be focused on secondary press coverage and not the type of flight? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Coverage is only one factor we have a shed full of precedent about what accidents are noteworthy for a stand-alone article, you have to remember that aircraft crashes are fairly regularly so they have pass a threshold, did they kill somebody important, did they hit something important, did it change the rules regarding aviation operation or maintenance, you also get civil and military (military accidents are far more common and less likely to be noteworthy) and the size of the aircraft, when you get down to what in the air transport world is a small aircraft then being scheduled or a private flight makes a difference. Cant see the relevance of press coverage, they all report the same news feeds to fill up space, coverage is probably the same as a bus crash which are rarely of note. MilborneOne (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * STOP THE PRESSES - KEEP Nature Air's AOC has BEEN SUSPENDED. This means that the accident is now notable enough to sustain an article per established consensus. Mjroots (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete At best an entry in Nature Air's accidents and incidents section despite the AOC suspension--Petebutt (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Peruvian Airlines Flight 112 Boeing 737 Landing gear collapse & aircraft caught fire injured 39 passengers the article is kept. A light transport aircraft with 12 people killed is up for deletion? I am sorry but this seems unfear in my eyes but it all on points of view. I vote keep for some of the same reasons at stated above. One fatel crash that could lead to probable cause & to any safety recommendations involving the airline or aircraft type. Two its the second deadlist accident in the country. Three 2017 was safest for Commercial aviation history making accidents like this even more rare. Four with that note it seems that light aircraft crashes with lots of people killed are going to be more common place as a wiki article jutst look at this year with 2017 Essendon Airport Beechcraft King Air crash, 2017 Sydney Seaplanes crash, Swan Aviation Sikorsky S-76 crash. Unless we get accident like that of Turkish Airlines Flight 6491 or West Wind Aviation Flight 280 fatal crashes like Nature Air are still going to happen unless changes are made to safety with aircraft of this size then Commercial aircraft. Making this accident with 12 killed on a aircraft which can seat 13 passengers & 2 pilots more notable to me. So I vote Keep. Cloverfield2Y (talk) 00.12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. AfD is not based on "fairness" or on other articles existing (or not). While this does now appear notable, please argue such based on policy, not "fairness". (Also see above re: how accidents with 737-size aircraft are by consensus held to a different standard than lightplane accidents such as Caravans.) - The Bushranger One ping only 01:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * DELETE Article states "The crash highlighted the danger of privately chartered tourist passenger flights...". Where is it established that privately chartered tourist passenger flights are dangerous? Statistically it still holds true that the most dangerous part of any flight is the drive to the airport. Nature Air appears to have a good safety record.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.131.122 (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * — 68.132.131.122 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep due to Mjroot's link which I guess shows lasting significance. I also find myself agreeing with PaPa PaPaRoony's arguments in spite of the various rebuttals. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is still much to happen for showing lasting significance. Merging to Nature Air is still appropriate since it is still mostly about Nature Air. Raymond3023 (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2018 (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.