Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cubana de Aviación Flight 310


 * 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. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Cubana de Aviación Flight 310
Cubana de Aviación Flight 310}}|2=AfD statistics}})

Per WP:AIRCRASH, most crashes are not independently notable. Per WP:NOTNEWS, aside from crash databases, this crash got little coverage, and was not notable for the people involved, nor their numbers (only ten passengers on the plane; small plane crashes are commonplace).

It is possible that this crash is notable within the context of the airline; if this was the first or deadliest crash by this airline, per WP:AIRCRASH, it warrants a note in the airline article, not its own article. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 17:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, there were 22 killed (not 10 as per nom). Cubana de Aviación are not a small operator, and the Yakovlev Yak-42 is not a small plane, it is an airliner capable of seating 100 or more people. The article needs improvement, but that is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - 10 was the passenger count. The other 12 were crew, which doesn't make it less tragic, but doesn't help with notability. The scale of the operator is irrelevant. I'll acknowledge that I don't know the stats on the plane itself, but a big mostly empty plane isn't much more notable than a small, full plane. Read WP:AIRCRASH. The bias is *strongly* against creating articles for run of the mill crashes. This crash shows no evidence of being atypical or otherwise notable enough to disregard that; there was no hijacking, no bombing, no indication that it was anything other than a typical "accident". Now, per WP:AIRCRASH, if it was the first crash for that airline, a particularly nasty crash, or illustrated something about the airline itself (e.g. if the crash was determined to be caused by poor maintenance, it would indict the airline), it might warrant mention on the airline's article. But the guidelines (both for news in general and airline crashes in particular) are clear on this: An airline crash of limited scale, with no unusual details, doesn't get it's own article. I'd highly recommend following the approach used for other airline crashes, with a perfect example linked directly from WP:AIRCRASH: All_Nippon_Airways. Assessing unwarranted notability due to deaths is understandable, but it's not a rational interpretation of the guidelines. Read the examples on WP:AIRCRASH. I've long since given up on people actually reading the guidelines when I ask, so here is every criteria mentioned there which would warrant an article (as opposed to a section in an existing article on the airline, airport, cause, etc.):
 * Significant, analytical coverage (British Airways Flight 38 happened at a major airport and received a lot of coverage). The key is that the coverage doesn't just say what happened, but that many different sources analyzed the crash and went beyond mere perfunctory reporting of facts. In the case of Flight 38, it was also the first 777 to be totaled, and led to a subsequent high profile, high coverage lawsuit. From our article as it stands, there was no level of coverage approaching this scale (and no coverage at all has been provided as a reference beyond air crash incident databases).
 * Deadliest at XXX (American Airlines Flight 191 was deadliest in U.S., Japan Airlines Flight 123 deadliest in history, etc.). I doubt our article is covering the deadliest crash for the airline or the country.
 * Extremely unusual cause or outcome; if not extremely unusual, it goes in an article on the cause (e.g. Bird Strike). The only example I can find of a cause making the crash notable without it also qualifying due to the "most deadly" qualifier is Iran Air Flight 655, which was shot down by a U.S. missile and caused a major international incident. There is no indication of cause given in our article.
 * First at XXX. Like deadliest, the first crash in a country or airport, or most significant (usually defined by consequences to the airport). However, this criteria is a relatively weak one; by and large, they don't seem to be getting articles unless the incident was also the deadliest in some way. I'm fairly sure there have been air crashes in this location before this one.
 * Military (doesn't apply)
 * Notable person or group, only if killed, significantly injured or deeply involved, and only if more than just the group is involved (otherwise it would be a section on the group's page). Clearly doesn't apply.
 * Awards or criminal prosecution (US Airways Flight 1549 for the former, every crewmember was given a medal, 2001 Japan Airlines mid-air incident for the latter, where criminal charges were brought for gross negligence). No indication of either in this case
 * That's the entire list of qualifications (WP:AIRCRASH goes in to more detail, but this summarizes it well enough, given that people probably won't read it). Keep in mind, this is not a vote; we're trying to reach, by consensus, a conclusion as to whether this article qualifies for inclusion based on Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion, in this case WP:NEWS and WP:AIRCRASH. If one of you can provide an argument for this page's existence within the framework of WP:AIRCRASH, I'll retract my nomination, but without such evidence, you aren't actually contributing to the discussion. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 21:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, have you looked at the article since you nominated it, particularly did you look at it before you posted the above? WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, it is not policy. As the accident occurred in Venezuela, it is likely that most of the sources for this accident will be in Spanish, which is why I've posted a plea at WT:SPAIN for help in expanding the article. A hull loss of an airliner should be sufficiently notable to sustain an article, regardless of the number killed. Mjroots (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I base my argument on past experience - hull losses resulting in 22 fatalities, be they crew or passenger, tend to meet the notability requirement, I've found. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Mjroots - the number of dead is significant enough, in my view, to make this acceptable. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per mjroots. MilborneOne (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- WP:AIRCRASH is rather stringent on what can be considered notable. The number of dead is somewhet subjective - even a single fatality death is tragic and, for those affected, it would be hard to not believe the event is not notable. But WP is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper, so the definition of "notable" is not the same as "terrible" or "tragic". WP:AIRCRASH limits stand-alone articles to trhose that have had a significant follow-on impact on, for example, the aviation industry (eg the grounding of an aircraft type) or society as a whole (eg a terrorist-related incident). For this particular article to be notable, we would need to find independent, verifiable sources discussing broader effects of the incident and not reports on "just" the incident itself. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Per mjroots. - BilCat (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with mjroots. It's a major jet crash where unfortunately all passengers and crew were killed.  As this occurred in a Spanish speaking nation on a flight originating in another Spanish speaking nation, Spanish language sources are most likely to be even more thorough.--Oakshade (talk) 05:25, 5 February 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.