Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filair plane crash


 * 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   kept. Nominations of this nature may have more success in future if they argued for transwiki rather than deletion were approached in a collaborative rather than combative fashion.Amended. DrKiernan (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC) DrKiernan (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Filair plane crash

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Yet another aircrash article created with zero evidence it will have any historical significance, and which is simply turning Wikipedia into a competitor of wikinews, rather than a sister project. As ever, I've nothing against recreation if there are changes in circumnstances, but based on what is known right now (airline, plane, fatalities, crash situation), it is unlikely. About the only remarkable thing is that the airline owner was the now dead pilot, but it was a two-plane airline anyway, so that's not so amazing after all. MickMacNee (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Give editors time to write an article before nominating at AfD. Accident has only just happened and it takes time for details to emerge. Twenty deaths would seem to give some notability to the accident. Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, wikinews is the place for editors who want to write the headline first and fill in the details later. On Wikipedia, you are supposed to wait until you have the details to be able to write the article that you can already prove will be more than just news. And all the relevant details are already out there to be able to Afd this article on the grounds it is just news, and not a significant crash. I'll withdraw if something new emerges to mark it out as a historical event, but not just because editors want more time to make it a better news article about an insignificant aircrash. MickMacNee (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)I'd
 * Whilst I would not have posted the article in that state, I'd say that notability had already been established by the number of deaths. That said, a lack of deaths does not mean a lack of notability either. Mjroots (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if you could decide what the magic number actually is, and stick to it. So far this week I've seen it quoted as 20, 14, and even 8, all for basic air crashes where nobody has offered any proof their coverage here is anything other than news reporting. And yes, lack of deaths is not lack of notability, but this is simply not a reversible piece of logic. MickMacNee (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Mjroots. 20 deaths indicates that it's probably going to get a bit more coverage, at least. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And? News coverage <> historical notability or significance. 20 deaths indicates there were 20 deaths, nothing more, nothing less. MickMacNee (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "propably going to get a bit more coverage" is crystal ballin. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  21:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article now expanded, reporting from US, UK and Belgium shows evidence of wide coverage outside immediate area of accident. 20 deaths should be more than enough to establish notability. Mjroots (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should it be? Don't simply assert it, justify it. Coverage of any multi-death plane crash outside the immediate area is not a surprise, thanks to things called news wires. And per WP:109PAPERS, this isn't evidence of notability. MickMacNee (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Article meets WP:RS and WP:GNG. 20 deaths is notable.  Lugnuts  (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "20 deaths is notable". Prove it. Show me any Guideline or documented precedent that Wikipedia creates an article automatically any time 20 people die in an accident. Given that we are an encyclopoedia and not a newspaper, this assertion is simply unsupportable. MickMacNee (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Takes up the challenge - see WikiProject Aviation/AfD record
 * An aircraft accident with no deaths, nomination withdrawn at AfD.
 * An aircraft accident with only four deaths, kept at AfD
 * An aircraft accident with no deaths, kept at AfD
 * Another aircraft accident with no deaths, kept at AfD
 * Shall I go on? Mjroots (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You can go on for as along as you like, as I haven't got the faintest idea what you are trying to prove with this list. MickMacNee (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that by precedent, articles on airline incidents with few or no deaths are routinely created and kept if nominated for AfD. Another interesting thing is that all the incidents outlined above happened in Eurasia, and this one happened in Africa. A Boeing airplane crashing into the Empire State building in New York and killing 20 people would be no more unremarkable based on fatalities or the airline than a bushplane run by a small company crashing in the Congolese jungle. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 23:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "by precedent, articles on airline incidents with few or no deaths are routinely created and kept if nominated for AfD" - seriously? You think that list supports this statement? Did you read the particular articles and Afds? As for the rest, I really am lost as to what your intended point is. MickMacNee (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * All of those AfDs had few or no deaths yet the articles were created and eventually kept after going through AfD. My point is that were such an event to occur in North America, Europe or even Africa, it would almost certainly get an article. This plane crash is no less significant having taken place in Africa than it would be in the hypothetical Empire State Building scenario. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 18:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, I have absolutely no idea what your point is. Please restate it in clear and precise terms, so I can understand exactly what you are saying, and how it is relevant to this Afd, becuase as far as I can tell, those Afd's have nothing to do with this crash, they aren't remotely similar. If you think this accident is even remotely similar to a plane striking the Empire State Building, well, to be blunt, that's pure garbage. MickMacNee (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, here's the point. It really does not matter where the plane crash took place. Whether the plane crashed in Congo, or in a city in the United States makes almost no difference to notability. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Who said it did? I never have. Quite the opposite infact. In an earlier post below, I said, "if you find me any similar article that occured in the US or the UK with 20 deaths and did not prove to be a historically significant aircrash, and I'll put it up for deletion on the same grounds". MickMacNee (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Who said it did? I never have. Quite the opposite infact. In an earlier post below, I said, "if you find me any similar article that occured in the US or the UK with 20 deaths and did not prove to be a historically significant aircrash, and I'll put it up for deletion on the same grounds". MickMacNee (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * MickMacNee - Maybe you can explain why this article with 42 deaths is notable (and indeed frontpage material), yet 20 deaths isn't notable. Oh that's right, you can't.  Lugnuts  (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why, yes I do believe I can. "The was the first hull-loss and the first accident with fatalities involving an Embraer E-190". This conveniently meets the WP:AVIATION essay clause A1, and the general common sense definition of what the word 'significant' actualy means in the context of historically notable aircrashes that are not simply news reports. So...have you got any more 'questions' you think I can't answer, and want to answer for me? MickMacNee (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This has significant coverage. Read the article.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What is this odd fragment supposed to be in reply to? MickMacNee (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Classic WP:NOTNEWS, yet another sub-stub headline from the same editor quickly abandoned only to create more work for other editors. There is no guideline or policy that ≥N deaths = notable. At the end of the day, a small aircraft crashed and killed a comparatively small number of people. In a year's time it will be completely forgotten. This kind of crap really should be a speedy criterion. Just a very quick glance at today's P:CE shows a road accident with a similar death toll which certainly wouldn't be notable. These kinds of incidents are too common to all be notable. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as Wikipedia is not a place for news reports. There is no evidence of lasting impact. The death of 20 humans is tragic but doesn't make the event notable and Wikipedia is not a memorial site. 21:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. The deaths of twenty people is tragic, though not notable. Accidents occur frequently and the fact they occur does no make them notable. This article is yet another news report, not meant for an encyclopedia. — Mike moral  ♪♫  22:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Furthermore, this type of event is ideal material for sister project, Wikinews. — Mike moral  ♪♫  22:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have noticed that this user MickMacNee seems to exhibit a hostile attitude in every comment that he or she has made on this Afd as well as the one for the Nepal crash. Can we please tone it down?  This isn't sports. Nutmegger (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mikemoral. Diego Grez (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Any significant crash with 5 or 10 deaths might get an article. The Air France Flight 358 incident did not get nominated for deletion even though there were zero fatalities, but the crash was also notable in its own right because there were no fatalities. However, a plane crash article covering an incident where 20 people were killed in the United States or England would almost certainly be kept, and in this incident the death toll may yet rise . ~ A H  1 (TCU) 23:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you prove that any crash with 5 or 10 deaths always gets an article? This is currently being discussed at the Aviation project, and they don't seem so sure tbh. And if you find me any similar article that occured in the US or the UK with 20 deaths and did not prove to be a historically significant aircrash, and I'll put it up for deletion on the same grounds. This is simply not an argument for keeping this at all. The circumnstances of Flight 358 have less than nothing to do with this crash, it is Other Crap, but the bad kind. MickMacNee (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not all minor crashes get an article, but many incidents with significant coverage do. Historical significance in this case is completely subjective, and so is any threshold for notability based on deaths. It's not the deaths that make a crash notable, it's the overall significance, and this crash took out half of an airline fleet killing its owner, and that in itself is notable. Your responses seem to be solely stating that you do not understand the point and then proclaiming that all the "keep" !votes are not "keep" arguments at all. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 18:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "this crash took out half of an airline fleet killing its owner" - the airline had two planes, in a country of many many small operators, and the company was founded by a pilot! If your idea of subjectiveness is to simply ignore basic facts like these just to be able to make grandiose sounding statements to make the incident sound more significant than it really was, then I don't think it's a viewpoint that counts for anything. MickMacNee (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Another thing is that only one person from this crash survived. The EU deems these airplanes unsafe. Also notability is often highly subjective. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 18:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The EU has banned all airlines in the Congo, this is wholly irrelevant to this one crash. And if the sole survivor aspect turns out to make this a historically significant accident, then as I've already said, I've no objection to recration. But by current accounts, it has not. MickMacNee (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:GNG, WP:EVENT, IMO worldwide coverage, regardless of how it gains such coverage, is enough for it to be notable. C628 (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * GNG is a presumption that cannot over-ride NOT#NEWS. Believing that worldwide coverage equals automatic notability is not exactly a good argument, and it's certainly not accepted good practice when dealing with NOT#NEWS concerns. WP:109PAPERS shows what you need to demonstrate about that coverage. And I very much would be interested in the exact parts of EVENT you think are satisfied by this article's coverage. MickMacNee (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Worldwide coverage=significant mention by numerous reliable sources, which means it passes pretty much every notability guideline in the book, WP:N, WP:EVENT, etc. Also, the fact that an investigation was begun means that coverage around it will not be a one-off thing, as results will be published, leading to more coverage of the incident, but focusing on a separate facet of it, and at a different time, which would also partially satisfy the "precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance" part of EVENT; investigation is significant, though not necessarily lasting. Investigation would also negate the 109PAPERS argument, as that refers specifically to coverage at a single point in time. C628 (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your idea of notability is not correct. If you don't cite the exact portions of the policies and guidelines that you think mean that international coverage is a shoe-in, notability wise, then it's not particularly convincing to me, because I know for a fact that when you get into the detailed definitions and concepts, they say different, as already explained. And the fact that an investigation is being conducted is irrelevant, an accident investigation is normally held for almost any kind of aviation accident, certainly all the way down to incidents so insignificant they will certainly never get articles. Holding this up as a sign of automatic notability, or as an EVENT 'catalyst', is completely pointless and totally self-defeating. And it is entirely possible that the investigation's conclusion will merely refinforce the fact that no, this crash was not historically significant. Maybe the point is not being absorbed here, but it is a simple fact that Wikipedia does not, and should not, have an article on every single airliner aircrash that ever happens. This is just a fact, for basic policy reasons, but your points would produce a situation that completely violates that principle. MickMacNee (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT," from WP:N. Right. So, two clauses there, GNG and NOT. Passes GNG. How? "Significant coverage." Check, just look at the references section. "Reliable [sources]." Ditto. "[Secondary] sources." Still passes. "Independent of the subject." Yep, the only two that could be considered possibly sort of close to violating this would be the two industry publications, which are a distinct minority in the article. "Presumed." Now this is the tricky one, and meshes with the "not excluded by WP:NOT" bit of WP:N. My opinion, for reasons I've stated above, is that it is not in violation of NOTNEWS, the applicable part in this case, which means that it passes the last clause regarding whether or not it's worthy of an article. There. That's my argument, and I've nothing more to add. Hmm... C628 (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, nothing about my nomination questions the reliability or secondary nature of the sources, which by definition any WP:NEWS source is, so this is just an irrelevant line of debate as far as I'm concerned. Second, while the coverage is significant for the purposes of N (talks about the whole subject in detail), it is not significant for the purposes of NOT#NEWS (it is not lasting, it does not depart from normal wire coverage), so to figure out what you've done here to get to a keep, I will need a better explanation, because your argument appears circular to me, you have tried to defeat the presumption clause of WP:N by claiming that the reason it is not a NOT#NEWS violation is by virtue of the fact is is notable??. This makes no sense at all. And yes, I saw that other Afd, and I would just point out that even that crash will be investigated, and have a report, which shows exactly what I've been saying - in terms of notability of aircrashes, it means nothing. MickMacNee (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per established practice, reliable sources and this proposed guideline: WikiProject Aviation/Notability If unhappy with the proposed guideline, I suggest proposing its change or deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Notability --213.167.156.218 (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note. This IP has made no other edits to the project except to copy and paste this same vote across three Afds of wildly different crashes


 * strong keep there are rubbish plane crashes with much lower fatalities and even smaller articles. sure, its not the biggest but some WikiProject Aviation (or something of the sort) must have monitoring for this. Come on, the russian crash recently wasnt even nominated for deleted (if memory serves), why is African crash deletable?(Lihaas (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC));
 * I am seriously struggling to pick out what your actual argument for keeping this article is, beyond WP:OTHERSTUFF. MickMacNee (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, especially as the owner of the airline was at the controls and the passenger airliner ran out of fuel on approach to landing airport. This has a lot to say about the state of aviation in Congo. That 20 people died is also notable. --Mareklug talk 02:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What out of those two facts makes this a significant crash? Has it been marked out in any of the coverage as marking this crash out as significant, among aviation in Congo? The airline had two planes, and the Congo has several small airlines, so was it really that unusual for the pilot to be the owner? I think we've adequately covered the idea that there is a magic number of deaths which makes things notable, but as ever, if you have anything to add to this idea to actually explain what it is based on, then let's hear it, because it is wholly disputed. MickMacNee (talk)
 * Strong keepand please stop these ridiculous AfDs--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you expect this non-vote to even be counted? Afd's will continue unless or until the defences of the articles gets a bit better than 'it's been in the news' or 'x number of people died'. MickMacNee (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no way in hell that this article will be deleted. we will soon know who is clueless here.  just wait and see.--Wikireader41 (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. These disruptive edits/AfD nominiations will be heading for WP:ANI.  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you carry on with your personal attacks and other general bullshit in here, I'll take it there first, don't you worry about that. P.S. Read WP:VANDALISM, it appears to be just one of many pages you have not read before. MickMacNee (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What personal attacks? You're just using your bullshit as a smokescreen to mask your grasp of what is/isn't notable.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You know. Clue:How do you spell my username? MickMacNee (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * M... i... c... k... M... a... c... N... e... e... Don't you know? Now repeat that back to me nice and slowly so I know you understand.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I know, because I'm not the idiot you seem to think I am. You however, seemed to have had trouble spelling it in this edit, yet when you restored it here, you miraculously got it right second time around. You had my removal edit summary, and you clearly noticed it, yet you have still acted the fool. MickMacNee (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you assume good faith. It was a typo, which I corrected. I have no idea why I would think of dick when reading any of your amazing comments.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You can suggest it, but I'm not such an idiot that I would believe you frankly, not given the evidence, and your continued lame attempts to be funny. I'm sure nobody else does either. MickMacNee (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well unless you can back up your claim, you are wrong (like most of your comments on here).  Lugnuts  (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, whatever you say Columbo. P.S. Calling someone retarded is a blockable offence. You have not been charged for this educational message. MickMacNee (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Friendly bit of advice - you sure could use it.  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rejection of the nominator's arguments is not vandalism nor a personal attack. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 18:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not talking about people's Afd arguments. Please do not comment on things you know nothing about. MickMacNee (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Classic news item. Brief coverage but quickly forgotten about. Christopher Connor (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep meets the guidelines;  air crashes with this many casualties are part of the historical record and invariable commented on for many years after.    DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What guidelines? And WP:CRYSTAL. We do not simply presume historical significance, not least when there is no accepted guideline for magic numbers of deaths in air accidents. If your claim about this accident being commented on for many years to come is even half true, then it will be a trivial exercise for someone to seek recreation when they have the actual evidence required. MickMacNee (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I would say it's notable enough.  Nole  lover  01:10, 2 September 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.