Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cargolux Flight 7933 (2nd nomination)


 * 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. SarahStierch (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Cargolux Flight 7933
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable incident that fails WP:AIRCRASH.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 23:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. ...William 23:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 23:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC) ...William 23:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets WP:GNG reliably sourced. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable incident - was not even classified as an accident. No WP:PERSISTENCE - brief "spurts" of news coverage don't necessarily the WP:GNG meet. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - The accident is notable enough to sustain an article. I accepted the result of the original AfD discussion at the time it was closed. Since then, new information has come to light which addresses concerns raised in the original discussion. I did not restore the original article myself, as that would have been an abuse of my administrative privileges (I would have been doing something with my tools for my own benifit that a non-admin couldn't have done). I asked via DRV for a relisting, but the outcome was that another admin restored the article so that it could be worked upon, leaving any editor to bring it back here in good faith for another discussion.
 * WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, not policy. That said, with the new information brought to light and added to the article, AIRCRASH is now met in that the accident brought about changes to the operation of the airfield and ATC. A lack of deaths does not necessarily mean a lack of notability. It is my belief that the GNG was already met, and there has been further recent coverage by Flight International, but that is behind a paywall. Mjroots (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:AIRCRASH suggests that if the event had an impact on the industry then it may establish notability. "Twelve recommendations were made in the AETs final report." The sheer fact that three separate investigations seems to suggest this was not routine. Mkdw talk 02:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - as stated by Mkdw, keep per WP:AIRCRASH. While AIRCRASH is an essay, I'd like to add up something to my rational. The article seems to meet GNG since the comments from the previous discussion have been addressed. It cites various reliable sources and is notable enough to have an article according to me. &mdash;  Yash [talk] 03:57, 8 January 2013 (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.