Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angara Airlines Flight 200


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Owen&times; &#9742;  16:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Angara Airlines Flight 200

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Per WP:NOTNEWS. The majority of sources constitute those of primary sources with a lack of reliable secondary sources. The event does not have in-depth coverage with a failure of continued coverage with lasting effects having not been demonstrated. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation,  and Russia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep this is not the best article, but there are clearly sources on the Russian language article showing sustained coverage of this fatality-causing incident. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The russian article on Angara Airlines Flight 200 has been nominated for deletion since 2021 with those three sources talking about the heroic actions of the flight attendant. I don't mind including this in the article but there needs to be more coverage talking about the accident for a sustained amount of time for the accident to be considered notable.
 * "of this fatality-causing incident."
 * Per the event criteria, criterion #4, Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.
 * There doesn't seem to be much that would give this accident, whilst tragic, additional enduring significance. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree with you. Whether something is notable on another Wikipedia does not matter. We usually keep articles on fatal commercial plane crashes, and those articles in the Russian article discuss the flight attendant being honoured by Putin, so a big deal, and retrospectives in Russian such as . SportingFlyer  T · C  13:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has deleted fatal aviation accidents involving commercial airliners. "Usually keep" doesn't always mean "keep" unless something gives the accident enduring significance.
 * You mention the flight attendant but what makes the accident notable in itself? The article fails multiple guidelines for a stand-alone article. In my opinion, there isn't enough that gives this accident enduring significance that would warrant a standalone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The death of the flight crew in normal passenger aviation combined with the lasting coverage of the event through the honouring of the flight attendant clearly gets it over the bar. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The sources covering the flight attendant's honouring are primary sources since they reported on the news when it came out without actually doing much analysis. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the articles on the flight attendant are clearly secondary, not "breaking news." See, that is clearly not a primary source. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's needs to be a consistent pattern of secondary sources. One secondary source does not make the rest secondary. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of secondary sources available for this incident. I don't really know why you're trying to discredit this on that ground. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's needs to be a consistent pattern of secondary sources. One secondary source does not make the rest secondary. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of secondary sources available for this incident. I don't really know why you're trying to discredit this on that ground. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 12:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAVOTE. gidonb (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep. The community has a longstanding consensus that the crash of a regularly-scheduled commercial passenger flight resulting in a total hull loss, fatalities, significant impacts aside from the crash of the aircraft, and/or long-term regulatory changes meets notability standards. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Could you link an established consensus on this matter? You're saying that the accident resulted in long term effects, changes in regulations but I haven't been able to find those. Could you explain where you're coming from? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Note that this comment was broken up into two parts by the following reply. I have reinstated my full reply. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but I'm busy. I don't expect to be able to spend much more than casual morning coffee drive-by's until mid-July at best.  You could try searching youself?  It shouldn't be hard to find.  RecycledPixels (talk) 08:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Which is what I did and it turned up nothing, so unless you're referring to the essay of WP:AIRCRASH, I don't see what longstanding consensus you're talking about. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of, nor have I been able to find, any such consensus either. WP:AIRCRASH is merely intended to help assess whether an event is worthy of mention in lists of accidents and incidents, and sure enough this accident is quite rightly listed on the airline, aircraft and airport articles. Just possibly, we could redirect to one of those rather than deleting it outright. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See for example Articles for deletion/VASP Flight 210, Articles for deletion/2022 Jubba Airways crash, Articles for deletion/Air Astana Flight 1388, Articles for deletion/Ural Airlines Flight 178, Articles for deletion/Ozark Air Lines Flight 982, Articles for deletion/Miami Air Flight 293, Articles for deletion/Biman Bangladesh Airlines Flight 60, and Articles for deletion/Lao Aviation Flight 703. I'm sure there's plenty of others, but those are ones I found by searching my contribution history.  RecycledPixels (talk) 06:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But could you link an established consensus? Community "consensus" doesn't override policy and guidelines which the article/event fails and does not excuse it from not meeting multiple guidelines. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact it's consistently brought up shows that it demonstrates at least some sort of "consensus" about how these articles are reviewed at AfD. In this instance, it was a passenger flight which resulted in fatalities, and received sustained coverage "after the event," which usually results in a keep. I don't know why this would be different. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's been brought up but it has never been established as an actual consensus.
 * Some articles, such as Lao Aviation FLight 703, Biman Bangladesh Airlines Flight 60, Miami Air Flight 293, Ozark Air Lines Flight 982 were nominated shortly after the creation of their article. Some articles such as Ural Airlines Flight 178, Air Astana Flight 1388 and VASP Flight 210, in hindsight, were very serious accidents due to their unique circumstances.
 * Notability isn't immediately inherited just because the event involved a commercial airliner. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No one is saying notability is inherited because of that, but look at the fresh deletion nomination Articles for deletion/Virgin Atlantic Flight 024 - it lists all the reasons when we generally characterise coverage of an aviation incident as lasting. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you link an established consensus on this matter? You're saying that the accident resulted in long term effects, changes in regulations but I haven't been able to find those. Could you explain where you're coming from? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Note that this comment was broken up into two parts by a previous reply. I have reinstated my full reply. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:AIRCRASH is not policy and it specifically recommends not being used at AfD. That being said, it absolutely does reflect how we tend to assess these sorts of articles for deletion, and is referenced over 800 times. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Then it is being referenced over 800 times incorrectly. As you said, WP:AIRCRASH is not a policy, so actual policy based arguments take precedence over essays. I don't see much evidence of this essay being thoroughly supported by the community. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it's not being used incorrectly. It's been mentioned at several AfDs recently and is Articles for deletion/Air Senegal Flight 301 Articles for deletion/Rimbun Air de Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter Articles for deletion/RA-78804 Articles for deletion/2024 SkyJet Elite Astra crash and you yourself used it in March here to delete Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 35. You can't have it both ways... SportingFlyer  T · C  21:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes and I used it incorrectly. I was told on another AfD to not use it as it was an essay which I have not since. As for the other Afds linked, just because they're used doesn't mean it's being correctly used. I can't speak for the others but let me remind you that consensus was quite clear cut in the others so arguments mentioning WP:AIRCRASH probably were not given too much value. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Additionally, in all those that you linked except for UA35, it was stated the use of WP:AIRCRASH was flawed and should not be used. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, there's an "and/or" in that sentence. So one or more of the items in that list. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My question still stays. [...] and long-term regulatory changes / [...] or long-term regulatory changes, it doesn't matter since it's being mentioned. Why mention it in the first place if it's being discarded and not going to be elaborated on? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen&times; &#9742;  12:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Airplane crashes do not have inherent notability. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 02:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: If the decision is not to keep, it should be redirected to Angara Airlines rather than being deleted, noting that this article is linked not just from the couple of navbox templates, but also from a few pages. It's reasonable for at least some of those appearances to remain, so interlinking is a net benefit. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen&times; &#9742;  15:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep by sources indicated above. gidonb (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what you mean? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Typo. Fixed in the source. gidonb (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Still, which sources are you referring to? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please stop bludgeoning this debate. It is annoying when nominators try arguing with each single editor who "dares" to disagree with their opinion. Moderators had their say in the intro. This intro wasn't unreasonably written, yet that doesn't guarantee that each editor will agree with you. We all do our research and bring our knowledge of policies, guidelines, subject matter, and other experience to a debate. gidonb (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep - I found some evidence of WP:LASTING from mention 4 years later in The Sunday Times -https://archive.is/OZXqk. I believe this crash may be plausible (barely) notable as part of a wider phenomenon cited by the times of Antonov An-24 airplanes being disproportionately involved in fatal accidents. BrigadierG (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about lasting effects or lasting coverage? From what I can tell, this is more of a brief mention, part of a wider range of An-24 accidents, since this was the first An-24 accident since Angara Airlines Flight 200. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you going to respond to everyone who disagrees with your nomination? SportingFlyer  T · C  11:17, 3 July 2024 (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.