Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippine Airlines Flight 475


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Philippine Airlines Flight 475

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable aviation incident. William 02:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  -William 02:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  -William 02:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -William 02:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The aircraft was damaged beyond repair and written off because of the crash, so it meets WP:AIRCRASH. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 04:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The article does not meet WP:AIRCRASH criteria for a stand-alone article, only for a mention in the type article. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Hull loss is a criteria for a airport or aircraft articles, standalone articles must meet WP:GNG. I cite this 131 DC9 hull losses have taken place, 64 without fatalities, but just 1 of which has an article.


 * This crash didn't change procedures, didn't involve anyone famous. News coverage was routine.- William 11:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:AIRCRASH has two seperate criteria levels, which a lot of people who argue "it meets AIRCRASH, KEEP!" miss. Yes, this article meets the WP:AIRCRASH criterion for mentioning in the airline or aircraft article. However, it does not meet WP:AIRCRASH criterion for a stand-alone article. To wit: "If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article above it may be notable enough for a stand-alone article if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports." This article fails on all three of those (WP:PERSISTENCE comes to mind as well). - The Bushranger One ping only 20:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - As mentioned by both the above "keep" and "delete" advocates, it does pass WP:AIRCRASH, but it also passes the WP:GNG guideline per the extensive coverage. WP:NOT is about, as it states, "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" which I don't think the coverage of this falls under the scope of.  And honestly, a crash of a jetliner in which is was total loss yet all 154 people on it survived is a very significant incident in my book.  Simply the historical nuance of at least one person dying as opposed to zero shouldn't be, and overall I don't think is, the only deciding factor to which we have articles. --Oakshade (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 01:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep, otherwise merge with the airline. WP:AIRCRASH specifically mentions hull loss as a major contributor to notability of an accident. In severity, a runway overrun that destroys the airplane but with no fatalites is approximately on par with Air France Flight 358. Coverage tends to be sparser in English media when the accident is in the Phillipines rather than in Canada, but that does not really detract from notability or significance. Sjakkalle (Check!)  16:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 09:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Sjakkale's excellent observation re non-English sources. Mjroots (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment English news sources in the Philippines are very abundant. I've lived there and my wife was born in the country.- William 19:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe they are, but that doesn't disqualify the use of non-English sources if they are also available. It's just that non-English sources are harder to use but is some cases they are likely to have significantly better coverage of the subject in question.
 * English news sources are definitely a lot easier to find in the internet than those written in the local languages. That said, this was never "headline news" when this happened. – H T  D  17:58, 17 January 2012 (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.