Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makhachkala Il-76 collision


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Makhachkala Il-76 collision

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Aviation accidents are common occurrences and there is nothing extraordinary or notable about this particular event. – Zntrip 23:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not the news. Mandsford (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I created this article as I believe 5 people dead is notable enough. Besides, the reason for the collision is pretty unusual, too. Today's Flight 1549 crash has no fatalities at all, however nobody thinks of deleting it. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk)
 * Delete - Per nom, no asserted notability, nor from sources. Relatively minor event, the deaths notwithstanding. Also, lack of deaths in a water landing is part of what makes that incident notable - very rare for that many to survive with no fatalities. - BillCJ (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep had this happened in the US or Europe there would be no question that this would be kept. WP:BIAS. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Needs more references, but the fact that 1549 was notable because of the water landing is not a valid refutation. Check out any other year for airplane disasters on Wikipedia and you will see articles on airplane crashes ranging from non-water landing and otherwise non-notable deathless disasters to comparable ones of several deaths like this: Coney_Island_plane_crash. -Kez (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out, I've added some more English-language references from IHT and RIA Novosti. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk)

*Neutral I'm not sure this meets WP:AIRCRASH as military aircraft are involved. It may be notable under the involves unusual circumstances criteria but I cannot be sure one way or the other. Mjroots (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:AIRCRASH in lots of criterias: military are involved, it's scheduled flight, 5 people dead, unusually circumstances - low number of fatalities for a water landing. --GreyCat (talk) 10:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did you read that this collision involved a water landing or a scheduled flight? This article isn't about Flight 1549 that landed in the Hudson River.  I look at this as a military accident, entitled to no greater treatment than Wikipedia accords the deaths of five other persons serving their country.  If five soldiers die in a battle in Afghanistan today, nobody will be writing an article about it.  Mandsford (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Unfortunately the reason given for deletion is down to personal preference. I would in fact say that aviation accidents are not common, especially ones where 2 planes collide and people die. Also the article could do with some pictures, there shit loads on Ilyushin Il-76 page. Ryan 4314   (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets AIRCRASH, most particularly in the unusual circumstances.  AK Radecki Speaketh  15:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep due to the fact the unusual circumstances of a collision, the deaths of five people and the destruction of two large aircraft there is an easy pass of the WP:AIRCRASH guidline. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. As has been said above there would be no question of deleting this if it had happened in the USA or the UK, and in this instance I don't see why the fact that the accident concerned military aircraft should make it any less notable than a similar accident involving civilian aircraft. These were not combat aircraft in a war zone, but passenger flights. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep fatal aviation accidents should get articles; they are properly considered notable because of the public interest leading to press coverage.
 * Keep. KNewman (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete (changed from Neutral above) The section of WP:AIRCRASH that applies to this article (a ground collision between two military aircraft) is:-

Military aircraft:


 * Accidents or incidents to military aircraft (as opposed to civilian aircraft) are not in the purview of this discussion.
 * Loss-of-life is not necessarily a valid criteria (due to the nature of military aviation, training crashes resulting in loss of life are not typically notable).
 * It is notable if there are unusual circumstances involved
 * It occurs in the civilian world and causes civilian casualties.
 * It is the first crash of a particular type of aircraft.

Ground collisions are not that unusual. Both aircraft were military, no civilian loss of life occurred. It was not the first crash of the IL-76. Mjroots (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The disclaimer for loss of life refers to training crashes; this was not a training crash. It should really rule out most/all crashes resulting from combat as well, but that is not really relevant here, more a passing thought. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as per all arguments above. Jared Preston (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2009 (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.