Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lion Air Flight 904


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. The response by the community to keep the article is overwhelming. I can't imagine any other outcome after 7 days. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Lion Air Flight 904

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:AIRCRASH and WP:GNG. Runway overruns are common.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 10:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ...William 10:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 10:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC) ...William 10:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Psses WP:GNG, as there are plenty of sources from various places: . Also passes AIRCRASH based on damage to the aircraft. Possibly worth coming back here later, if the coverage doesn't go beyond the next couple of days. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Question. If it meets the GNG then why are you nominating it for deletion on the grounds of non-notability? Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume William didn't look for sources, although admittedly some were literally published just after he nominated this. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. It actually passes WP:AIRCRASH, since there was "hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft".  Specifically, two articles indicate fuselage damage, one of which giving a quote saying it was "broken into two" and "a total loss". It passes everything in WP:GNG too.  . Superm401 - Talk 12:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. As Superm401 pointed out, the WP:AIRCRASH guideline for a stand alone article is met. --FoxyOrange (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've changed my vote, helps if I read AIRCRASH properly! Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, plane crashes involving a hull loss are always noteworthy. --Zerbey (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies WP:AIRCRASH. Keri (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, easily passes GNG, significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject, multiple sustained and significant discussion amongst hundreds of reliable sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, perhaps Speedy as this is embarrassing. - Commercial jetliners falling into the sea and breaking apart are not common and extremely rare. It is stunning that everyone survived, which makes it all the more remarkable of an incident.  Of course it passes WP:GNG as coverage is extensive and it would be willful ignorance to presume there will be no thorough investigation and reports that will be scrutinized worldwide in the future.  The knee-jerk nonsensical AfD of this article appears very pointy.--Oakshade (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per above. Davey 2010   Talk  15:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, all plane crashes with hull losses, as stated by User:Zerbey are notable. smileguy91talk 15:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - hull loss. (I've seen pictures on the news.) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note - It appears as a news shown in main page of NetEase news. And I believe it should be kept for planes rarely falls into sea. --222.35.186.163 (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a hull loss, and not everyday a plane splits in half in the water... Airplanegod (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2013 (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.