Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flight RFL111


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 21:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Flight RFL111

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTNEWS. Unremarkable aircraft crash. TheLongTone (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The crash was widely related by international media: Fox News, ABC News, Washington Post. The poor management of the search and rescue operation had implications in many institutions (the Interior Minister Radu Stroe resigned, the head of ROMATSA was dismissed, the head of IGSU also resigned). Razvan Socol (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Any event nowadays gets "widely related" coverage - the key is WP:PERSISTENCE. Now, the aftermath may rise to the level where this is a notable accident, but the breadth-of-coverage in our electronic era cannot be assumed to imply notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A rather poor argument as none of that is in the article!!!--Petebutt (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:V, they do not need to be, they only need to exist. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Tragic but not notable non-commercial flight....William 12:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. No likely lasting notability.--Charles (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable for Romanian people. Luckily, there are very few crashes in the country's history--Hequba (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 09:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Keep per Razvan Socol's cogent points. Many English-language sources also support the statement that this crash has had substantial political repercussions .--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wide media coverage. NickSt (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable subject. Terraflorin (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Really sad, but no lasting impact; a private light aircraft crash in mountains with an old plane is not too surprising. Leondz (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Although not intrinsically a notable crash, its impact in terms of changing air legislation and disaster response has been significant and will be lasting. Leondz (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Sad for the family and friends of the two persons killed, but there is no attempt in the article to demonstrate why there will be any lasting WP:EFFECT therefore it fails the WP:NOTNEWS policy.  LGA talk  edits   03:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 06:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. This crash led to the resignation of the interior minister Radu Stroe (see refs 13 and 14 in that article) which clearly demonstrates lasting significance. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, do you have any refs in English for this? Leondz (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not personally, although I've not spent any significant time looking. Arxiloxos lists three above though, and anyway references not in English are perfectly fine (see WP:NONENG]). Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * English language sources here, here andhere: this material should be included in the article, because they make a clear case for this crash being of lasting interest.TheLongTone (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep -- should we try to cover every airplane crash? No.  Are some people here arguing we shouldn't cover this crash because we haven't covered every crash?  Irrelevant.  There is no point trying to cover crashes which lack coverage in RS.  There is no point regretting not covering some crashes, when they just don't trigger the attention of a contributor willing to start the article.  But, crashes that are covered by RS, and where contributors have drafted a neutrally written article that uses those RS, I see no reason to delete those.  If, as claimed above for this crash, it has been suggested the crash will trigger policy changes -- that is a strong argument for retention.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Leondz' last edit to the article, highlighting the political upheaval the crash has caused, has made it easy to see that the GNG are met. YSSYguy (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The accident had important political consequences in Romania. But the main significance, at European level, is about to fail the 112 emergency number in case of search and rescue, and the lack of response from International Cospas-Sarsat Programme. --Turbojet (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2014 (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.