Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 UY Aviation King Air C90 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. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

2018 UY Aviation King Air C90 crash

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTNEWS. No prolonged coverage on the crash of this chartered-plane. SD0001 (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment This aircraft crash appears notable to me per WP:GNG, caused 5 casualty, 4 inside plane + 1 on ground. I would like to hear from WP Aviation editors on how crash articles are evaluated. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * - see WP:AIRCRASH which is a well regarded essay (but not policy). This one however is borderline per AIRCRASH (which is not coverage based, as the Beechcraft King Air is a borderline light aircraft - is MTOW varies by model and is at the edge of the criteria set in AIRCRASH). The crash being fatal - including casualties on the ground - increases chances of notability. WP:GNG trumps AIRCRASH is any event - the question here is assessing coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Borderline in terms of meeting AIRCRASH (borderline size, but the plane was doing a a chartered passenger flight, there were casualties, and notably this crashed into a city and caused a casualty on the ground as well). Very widely covered in June. Some coverage in July - . I'm at weak as I don't see coverage in August - however seeing we're evaluating this on 2 September (2 months and a bit from the event) - this is a somewhat RAPIDish situation - my personal crystal ball however does divine some additional coverage is likely (per judicial probes and the like).Icewhiz (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The 2nd link (xinhuanet) is on an entirely different incident, just noting. SD0001 (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree, 2nd link is about another incident, but it does mention this incident in passing. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep After sitting on the sidelines, I am going for Keep as it passed WP:GNG due to the significant coverage WP:SIGCOV it recieved in national and international media BBC Independent UK and NYT there was coverage after the incident as well, And Although I have not found but due to the CBI investigation, I am sure this incident led to changes in the Standard operating procedures in India. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:45, 2 September 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.