Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katekavia Flight 9357


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Katekavia Flight 9357

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

WP:NOT. An article about an aircrash which, upon investigation, seems to only be sourcable to just to the brief burst of news on the day. There seems to be no evidence that it will become a historically notable crash or significant event, and nothing that is currently known about it supports such a conclusion. As ever, I've no objection to recreation if notability can be proved with some later events. MickMacNee (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Article meets WP:GNG (significant coverage, independent of the subject, etc) with the sources provided. NTEMP invalidates your arguement about it becoming historically notable. Maybe you should try to start a centralised discussion about the WP notability guidelines?  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The GNG is a presumption. It does not over-ride NOT#NEWS, and neither does NTEMP. MickMacNee (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG/WP:N with sources, guaranteed additional coverage in the future because investigation has begun, the crash also led to an investigation of the airline itself, meaning it passes the "...precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance..." clause of WP:EVENT, not to mention the "significant national or international coverage" of the crash. C628 (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The GNG is a presumption, and so is EVENT. They do not over-ride NOT#NEWS, nor are they automatic passes if content does not warrant separate articles. And what the source actually says about the investigation of the airline is, "a special commission had been set up to investigate how Katekavia was organizing its flights". That sounds like a matter for the airline article, rather than a justification for keeping a separate crash article. Not to mention that without a conclusion, there is no evidence that this will be of lasting significance to the airline. Even the Aviation project's own aircrash notability essay is clear - do not create crash articles where the only significant consequential impact is on a single airline/airport. As for the crash investigation, such investigations are routine - the 'guaranteed coverage' is, for the purposes of N, completely irrelevant, seeing as we do not write articles on every crash that is ever investigated. The "significant national or international coverage" is infact not significant in the way NOT#NEWS, GNG or even EVENT defines it. It is just what you would routinely expect for a crash of this size, just the standard news wire repetition of local officials statements, so unless you are advocating some kind of automatic inclusion criteria on that basis, I don't see how this assertion supports anything, rather it reinforces the idea this is a NOT#NEWS case. MickMacNee (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And my point is that this is not a NOTNEWS case, as there have been repercussions because of the crash, which leads to enduring notability. C628 (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes....and I thought I had already explained how this point doesn't take account of current practice, common sense, or the actual detailed wording in all the policies, guidelines and essays, which go into great detail about these things. You need to refine it, not simply restate it. MickMacNee (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per C628--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's recent news now but it's just the sort of news with notability that outlasts the news cycle, and should grow considerably as details emerge and investigations are done.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 13:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This rationale doesn't make sense to me. We do not keep articles on predictions of future news coverage, which appeared to die out nearly a month ago, and an investigation, impending or otherwise, does not confer automatic notability on Wikipeda, as explained at length in reply to C628. MickMacNee (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, WP is not a crystal ball. But this is already longer and better sourced, from reliable sources, than many articles that appear on the front page as a "did you know...?". My observation was that it may seem a little short on the detail for such a significant accident but that's not unusual, and will improve as investigations are done. And with significant coverage not just from Russia media or air industry sources but from the likes of CNN and Xinhua it already easily meets general notability guidelines.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 18:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, coverage from CNN or Xinhua does not give automatic notability - these are routine, and pretty brief, international wire reprints, and in depth coverage from Russia also does not defeat NOT#NEWS. The air industry sources are irrelevent - they cover anything and everything, well outside Wikipedia's scope or sense of historical significance. Coverage from a future report also doesn't count in terms of defeating NOT#NEWS - we simply do not have an article on all the crashes that get reported on - which is a huge number. I would be happy for the Aviation project to try and propose this, but right now, it is nowhere near to being a match with current practice. And simple article length and quality of sourcing is irrelevent - the nomination is about NOT#NEWS, not style, or the GNG in the sources sense (as opposed to the EVENT sense). MickMacNee (talk) 21:03, 28 August 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.