Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AIRES Flight 8250


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

AIRES Flight 8250

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Per WP:NOTNEWS. Just another news report on a plane crash. One death, not notable. — Mike moral  ♪♫  22:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable event. Diego Grez (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as Wikipedia is not the news. There is no evidence of lasting impact. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  23:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge move details to Boeing 737 Next Generation and redirect there. Does not appear to meet criteria at WP:AIRCRASH. -fnlayson (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Accident is a hull loss. Considering the aircraft broke up and only one death occurred, the article probably should be kept. -fnlayson (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The fact that it led to the aircraft being written off, as well as the extensive coverage surrounding the incident, which would seem to be enough to meet WP:EVENT, WP:GNG, what have you, and the fact that an investigation into is under way, which would guarantee additional coverage of the incident in the future, meaning it's not just a single flurry of news reports, all seem to me to be enough to keep it. C628 (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Accident is notable enough in that almost everyone survived despite the damage to the aircraft. Meets WP:AIRCRASH criteria A3 and (apparently also) L2. V x RS x many = N. Mjroots (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Aircraft written-off, one casualty despite the aircraft being broken into at least three pieces. Given that an investigation is underway, there should be continuing coverage in the future, but if not, an AFD could be re-filed in a few months. - BilCat (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG with all the WP:RS in the article.  Lugnuts  (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Hull loss, international investigation, sufficient coverage is guaranteed LeadSongDog come howl!  14:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per BilCat--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The accident was notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a simple airplane crash. News services regularly report on airplane crashes. Since when is a simple airplane crash of historical significance? Do the news agencies' reports create notability? Will anyone care about or remember this crash one month from today? One year? A decade? A century? I doubt it. A loss of a human life is tragic, but not notable. — Mike moral  ♪♫  04:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Accident investigation agencies do reports and find flaws in training, procedure, and design. Each crash (even if it isn't fatal) is analyzed for possible clues on how to prevent it from happening. This process, and the coverage in news media, makes many crashes notable.
 * "Will anyone care about or remember this crash one month from today? One year? A decade? A century? I doubt it" - Oh, yes they will. Track a major crash (JAL 123, etc. and the effect continues and continued and continues) - Even crashes with less fatalities have the same thing
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Because airplane accident occurred, it should have an article irregardless of cause or consequence? Any plane crash is notable, according to you. Plane crashes may be tragic, but they lack notability. — Mike moral  ♪♫  02:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Continuing, many news services report on crashes once. From what I see on Google News, there was two days of converge: August 16 and 17. Take a look at WP:109PAPERS. — Mike  moral  ♪♫  02:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The point of that article is that a news event alone is not automatically notable even if it is covered in 109 papers without other evidence of notability (analysis and connections to broader events). However, Mikemoral, plane crashes don't just get covered in 109 newspapers. They have accident reports written about them. Laws change. Airworthiness directives are passed. Changes in procedure occur. Lawsuits get filed and people may go to prison. Companies may go bankrupt. Almost all fatal air accidents have long-lasting consequences and non-trivial, non-news only coverage. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that also make automobile accidents notable? When there's crashes, police are called and write accident reports. Those reports make their way to the various government agencies and over time (using California as an example), an agency such as Caltrans may decide it is necessary to install a traffic signal or perhaps alter the speed limit. My point is the most accidents whether it be an aircraft or automobile is not automatically notable because reports are written; there must be direct effects to legislature and here it's not exactly the case. Notability cannot be determined within the week of the air crash, but within a year if there is still lasting significance to the incident, then it is most likely notable. — Mike moral  ♪♫  20:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't make automobile accidents automatically notable. This is because there are millions of those across the world every year, as opposed to airliner write-offs being numbered in the tens each year. Even if we include GA, Biz-jets and military losses (not saying we should), numbers would be unlikely to breach the low thousands at most. Mjroots (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, Wikipedia is not the news. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: While it is not exactly the news, many news stories are certainly notable, like this one. Plus there will be continuing coverage. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Proposal A Wikipedia project should be set up to assess what articles and what article characteristics receive and do not receive sustained rather than transient independent IP address viewer hits to establish objective criteria for WP:NOTNEWS. In the case of an article like AIRES Flight 8250 where there are doubts, there should be an option to keep but subject to review in 12 months time that it receives more than a certain number of independent IP address view hits.--LittleHow (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I fail to se how IP viewer hits are even relevant here. The subject hasn't even come up in the above discussions. - BilCat (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Hull-loss accident with deaths.--HyperSonic X (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, could you give more of a rationale behind this keep !vote? — Mike moral  ♪♫  04:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, what makes hull loss accidents automatically notable? Can you point me to the policy? — Mike moral  ♪♫  04:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But there is an investigation under way and the aircraft was written off.--HyperSonic X (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Week keep. This was the first hull loss of the 737-700 type, AND there is a focus on the fact that the low death count may have been due to the design of the aircraft. And unlike most similar accidents, the international coverage does go beyond simple wire reprints to focus on those aspects, albeit in the news values way of calling it a 'miracle' etc. That in my book adds up to historical signifance and notability. But this is only a week keep however, and I could easily be swayed into a merge, as the sources and the article still do not appear to be reflecting these aspects adequately to take the article beyond what is still is pretty much a news report. That and the fact that I do not want to endorse the flat-wrong opinions of those people arguing keep here simply because it was a hull loss, or that there is an investigation ongoing - these facts do not confer automatic notability or address NOT#NEWS concerns. If people disagree with that, then propose it as a guideline on VPP with a proper justification as to how such a guideline would not inherently violate NOT#NEWS or even NOT#INFO. MickMacNee (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2010 (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.