Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central American Airways Flight 731


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Central American Airways Flight 731

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability not established. Diego Grez (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets the consensus notability standard outlined in WP:AIRCRASH for these sorts of articles as the Let 410 is over 12,500 lbs. - Ahunt (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep- Agree with above. It meets the notability criteria for crashes.- William 17:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hull loss, fatalities, acceptable weight -- passes all of the prereqs for notability in WP:AIRCRASH. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 18:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:AIRCRASH. wacky  wace  19:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as per WP:GNG. Guoguo12  --Talk--  20:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy snowball keep per all the above. Mjroots (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per above and also due to the unusual number of high-ranking officials on board, which elevates the incident above a normal plane crash of this size. C628 (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody of the so-called high-ranking officials have a Wikipedia article, do they? Diego Grez (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hardly surprising, as there are hardly any Honduran high-ranking officials on WP in the first place. Does that mean they aren't notable? Of course not.  Lugnuts  (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not a requirement that there be notable people on board to comply with WP:AIRCRASH on an aircraft of this size. - Ahunt (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean, aircraft crashes like this occur very often, I don't see the need to have this one. As per WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NOTNEWS. Diego Grez (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Lugnuts is right, there seems to be some logical error here: Wikipedia article = notability; therefore no Wikipedia article = non-notable. See denying the antecedent. Guoguo12  --Talk--  19:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Honduras is a pretty poor country - it would be remarkable if the passengers of any small domestic flight like this did contain at least one or two people who were notable for something. More often than not, it would be most I reckon. This was not a £1 a seat domestic EasyJet flight that's for sure. Even for developed countries, it's still a good possibility - the last minor crash added to the Wikipedia database could have killed Martin McGuinness. MickMacNee (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability is established! Easily meets the GNG.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article currently fails most if not all of EVENT, the meeting of which is a basic requirement of AIRCRASH. The coverage comprises 3 aviation focused sources combined with 2 zero-depth, wire-sourced duplicated general (news) sources. That unhealthy mix doesn't support the existence of Wikipedia-type GNG or historical event notability here, and it certainly doesn't show this is not going to be yet another soon to be abandoned NEWS article, part of Wikipedia's ever expanding RECENTism infested aircrash database. MickMacNee (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on this search, the subject seems to have been "covered in diverse sources" and to have had a "widespread (national or international) impact". The subject also meets the GNG ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). Guoguo12  --Talk--  19:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not how I interpret those results. If you have some substantive examples from there to convince me of your claims, give it a try, but you were wasting your time responding here with that link if you were just assuming I make votes in Afds without doing such searches beforehand. MickMacNee (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passing WP:GNG has been established by the in-depth coverage. It would be willful ignorance to presume that a commercial passenger airliner crash that killed all passengers will be suddenly forgotten about as a "run of the mill" event. --Oakshade (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Picked at random....on 16 December 2001, a domestic scheduled flight in Colombia involving the same type of aircraft crashed in poor weather, killing 14 passengers and 2 crew. If such incidents are not forgotten about over time, if such assertions are 'willfull ignorance', then it should really be a trivial matter for you to flesh out this factoid to produce a well-rounded article on both the events of that crash, and all the lasting effects and historical significance of it, without simply resorting to contemporary news sources or specialist sources like the ASN, to show what a valuable addition it would have made to Wikipedia, had it been one of the first articles to be added here (it turns out it wasn't as it happens, I already looked). It doesn't have to be perfect, just lay out some prose here, with the secondary sources you based it on, and we'll see what you can come up with, as a signal to how this article might look in 10 years time. It might even bring some hope to those people who must be really concerned that, while our L-410 article not only doesn't tell you anything about that crash, it also doesn't say anything at all about the L-410 crashes that killed 10 or more people between the two passably 'historical era' ones it does manage to document, between 1977 and 1995. That's before even filling the gaps before the year of the first full article we do have, from 2007. MickMacNee (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The editing or non-editing of other articles has no bearing on the notability of this topic. There are plenty of articles of very notable topics that have had little improvements done on them in a long time, but that doesn't suddenly make those topics non-notable. --Oakshade (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The crash is definitely noteworthy. There may be a lack of sources in English, but there are plenty available in Spanish (of which I have added a few).  Additionally, the Honduran government declared three days of official mourning for the victims, and the president of Honduras has openly stated that the airport in Tegus must be relocated and no further funding should be put into it.  El Heraldo, one of the major newspapers of Honduras, has a 13 part special on the accident, available here, as does La Tribuna another Honduran national newspaper.  Ravendrop 23:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep (I don't really think that I can add any rationale that hasn't already been discussed) --Strikerforce (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The deaths of current and former government ministers establishes notability. -- can  dle • wicke  10:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly meets two of three WP:AIRCRASH standards for aircraft over 12,500lb MTOW, of which it only needs to meet one: (1) hull loss (2) fatalities. Probably meets the third standard (changes to aviation standards or procedures) due to the call by the Honduran president to reloate the airport the aircraft was on approach to when it crashed, as a direct result of the crash. Also likely meets WP:GNG due to a high-level government official, a former higher-level government official, and a current union leader being on board; none of the three appear to have bluelinks, but that is likely a WP:BIAS issue (if they were American government officials in the same position, they would have had articles long ago). - The Bushranger One ping only 00:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * AIRCRASH requires it to meet GNG, EVENT and NOT#NEWS to have a stand-alone article. If it's your intention to say that it does that, please say so explicitly, as it's becoming quite disturbing to see that many people seem to think that all the rewritten AIRCRASH essay does actually require for 'big plane' crashes to be automatically notable (which as it turns out, goes all the way down to 10 seat island hoppers) is to tick the 'death/loss/changes' boxes. MickMacNee (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You do have a point there, and some people (including me, at least once, to be completely honest!) have mistaken the "one of three" AIRCRASH criterion for mention in type articles as qualifying a crash for a stand-alone article. It's my opinion here that the WP:GNG is satisfied by the fact that high-ranking officials, whose lack of Wikipedia articles about them is almost certainly due to WP:BIAS rather than a lack of notability, were killed in the crash. WP:EVENT is probably satisfied, due to the fact that the accident has led to the President of a country calling for an airport to be relocated, as a direct result of the accident, a call that would have not have taken place had the crash not happened. Having just read over WP:NOTNEWS, given the points mentioned above, I believe it should satisfy that, as well - while "puddle-jumpers", especially Eastern European-built ones, do crash fairly often in the Third World, having one kill a high-ranking government official, a retired Cabinet-level govenment official, and a union leader all in one go is anything but routine - I can think of only two comparable crashes off the top of my head, the one that decapitated the Polish government, and the Ron Brown crash, the latter being directly comparable, IMHO. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. per Bushranger.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2011 (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.