Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sun Way Flight 4412


 * 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.  Jujutacular  talk 02:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sun Way Flight 4412

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

WP:NOTNEWS. Planes fall from the sky far too often for every one to be notable and the airline the aircraft belonged to isn't even notable. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The Il-76 is a large aircraft. The fact that the airline does not have an article does not mean that it is not notable. This accident completely destroyed the aircraft, killing all eight crew on board, as well as between 4 Aviation Herald and 18 Korrespondent (in Russian) ground casualties. Coverage has been worldwide, including Russia, United States and the United Kingdom, thus establishing coverage outside the immediate local and regional press. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - So what if the airline the jet belonged to isn't notable? A quad-jet cargo aircraft crashing into a dense neighborhood of a major city is a very significant event.  Very extensive worldwide coverage.  There's evidence this was caused by a bird strike and this case will most certainly be studied for a long time to come in efforts to understand and hopefully prevent tragedies like this again.--Oakshade (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SPECULATION. Lunalet (talk) 07:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - per the two preceding Keep comments. Also, this seems to be a frivilous AFD just for the heck of it - no real thought at all, just a vague NOTNEWS comment. - BilCat (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read Speedy keep Bilcat. MickMacNee (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This user knows I cannot respond to him under the terms of my unblock. Scch comments are obviouslyt baiting. Suggest a one-week block would be appropriate,and that the admin then mysrteriously be unable to log on for 20 hours to respond to unblock requests. ;) - BilCat (talk)
 * I didn't know actually. Looking at your archive it seems HJMitchell neglected to tell me anything about this unblock binding promise of yours to stay away from me, or that he had told you he would "see to it that he avoids you as far as humanly possible ". If I was remotely aware of such a notification infact, why would I have posted to your own talk page just yesterday? Rather than calling for me to be blocked on the assumption that I must have known you had promised to avoid me, I suggest you wait to see if Mitchell will explain how he can invoke an interaction ban without notifying one of the affected parties. The only ban I'm interested in is you not repeating what you did to get blocked, and it seems that was what was originally offered to you in the first place. I can hardly have been expected to have been following the progress of your unban negotiations, if you recall I was rather busy at the time with my own conversations with admins and other interested observers. Infact, I'm pretty sure you and I interacted at the Qantas Afd, how come you never mentioned this then? MickMacNee (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's assume good faith. Under the current version of WP:AIRCRASH, accidents don't necessarily merit a stand alone article unless they also pass the significance test of WP:EVENT, and WP:NOTNEWS is a legitimate concern when an article is created in response to news.  While my personal opinion is that a guideline that used to be way too inclusive has evolved into way too strict, it's a fair question about whether a recent news event can be expected to attain long range significance-- and in that instance, it's a matter of opinion.  In this case, it was a cargo carrier rather than a passenger airliner, although there were also at least four people killed on the ground.  The significance of a lack of an article about the Sun Way Airlines is that there's no redirect target if the consensus were that this didn't merit a stand alone article.  Mandsford 20:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's always the aircraft article to rfedierct too. - BilCat (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * While I don't doubt that the nom is sincere in the nomination, almost every aviation accident article is being nominated for AFD now on the same NOTNEWS grounds - and the majority are kept. Sincere or not, this is a collective waste of time, as there is no discernment evident in the nominations of the past few months. - BilCat (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To be clear, this accident is likely to be notable per WP:EVENT: and WP:EFFECT: This event has received "widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources", and "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." - BilCat (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - per WP:AIRCRASH, accident was fatal. --Kslotte (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That comment shows that you obviously don't understand either WP:SK or WP:AIRCRASH (which, if anyone's wondering, is an essay). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is WP:SK I didn't understand, so Keep. Anyway, WP:AIRCRASH being a guideline or not, it gives some indications and reasoning what is notable and what is not. --Kslotte (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - as per above comments. However I would add that wikipedia is used around the globe and it is not necessary for everything to be notable everywhere. For example in this case, for the people of Karachi this incident is very notable as it is the second aircraft crash in thirty days, moreover it was a large aircraft that crashed into a dense residential area. Furthermore there were no survivors from the crew and there were casualties on the ground. Taqi Haider (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep; a large plane crash, with worldwide coverage of the incident, is not routine news coverage and does not fall under WP:NOTNEWS. C628 (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The fact it was a big plane, or that some people died, or that it was caused a bird strike, or that it occured so soon after a completely unrelated accidents, or that it fits one editors personal idea of what is and is not routine news, or that an editor thinks people will for sure investigate it in future, are all pretty poor ways to actually rebut a NOT#NEWS and WP:EVENT nomination. I would also dispute that the coverage in this article demonstrates international impact, or widespread coverage in diverse sources. They are all simply wire news reports, saying pretty much the same thing, and with not much depth at all beyond what you would normally expect a news report to contain. It got reported in Russia for instance, because it was a Russian crew. In terms of how news organisations work, I'd say that was a case of perfectly normal and routine international reporting, and not something an encyclopoedia would consider worthy of inclusion per NOT#NEWS, without other supporting factors, as for example expanded upon in EVENT, which have not been shown to exist here. MickMacNee (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Oh, and it crashed in an unfinished construction project on a naval base - that is not a "dense residential area" by any stretch of the imagination. It may have crashed near a residential area, which is a reasonable assumption given that it got into difficulties climbing away from an airport, but then again, if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. MickMacNee (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT were created to prevent routine insignificant stories from having articles simply because they were reported in the news and have no lasting significance, ie "Peoria Firefighters Rescue Cute Cat Stuck in Tree", not major jet crashes into neighborhoods in major cities caused by a notorious and deadly problem that aviation experts are continuously striving to prevent. Look at the talk history of those guidelines and you'll see.  Many people are under the mistaken impression that simply because an event was reported in the news, automatically WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT applies.  It doesn't.  To imply that there will be no investigation, analysis or follow-up by any government, aerospace company or aviation agency and this will magically be forgotten tomorrow is simply willful ignorance. --Oakshade (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know which guidelines you are looking at, but the latest one makes it pretty indisputably clear that NOT#NEWS and EVENT very much do apply to all aircrash articles, and that those are what has guided the topic specific aircrash notability draft in stating the what's, why's and wherefore's behind lasting notability in this field. And if you look at it, you will see that it does take account of the fact investigations always occur, and what governments/industry/faa's are interested in. If you think this crash would pass EVENT and NOT#NEWS once the report comes out, well, considering bird strikes are an ongoing issue, then you should have no problem finding an historical case of a similar sort of crash like this, and proving that with some sample diffs, if it's not already got a Wikipedia article with all the necessary sourcing evidence, to rebutt the nomination. Certainly for common crashes, it really is odd to see how infrequently historical precedent is presented in these Afds as better proof than simple assertion. MickMacNee (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the same guidelines and not only do I not see how this applies to all or even any aircrashes. It applies to news events and discourages routine news events from having articles like sports matches or wedding announcements.  The guidelines in no manner whatsoever "bans" articles on major air crashes into major cities such as this one. --Oakshade (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look at WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Notability. Both the current version and the previous versions. They could not be clearer that NOT#NEWS and EVENT apply to all crashes, aswell as on everything else I said if you look at past draft versions too, such as the fact that reports are always issued means nothing. You seem to be making the classic mistake of assuming that just because something is not specifically barred in NOT#NEWS, or not mentioned in EVENT, it does not apply. You couldn't be more wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That essay (not guideline) states "If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article 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." That simply states an airchrash should be subject to notability guidelines like anything else. The essay does NOT in any manner mean that air crashes cannot have articles.--Oakshade (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have got absolutely no idea what your point is any more. You tried to claim that NOT#NEWS and EVENT don't apply to aircrash articles, that they somehow don't have to be shown to pass both of them to have an article here, I've shown how this is simply not true, and explained at length the reasons why. If you think that I said at any point that aircrashes cannot have articles just because they are based on news, period, then you are fighting an imaginary battle, because I never said anything of the sort. MickMacNee (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you bringing a straw man into this? Never did I or anyone here state NOT#NEWS and EVENT don't apply to aircrash articles.  Those guidelines should be adhered to for any topic.  What we're saying is that those guidelines don't advocate this topic should be deleted.  Just stating a guideline "applies" to a topic doesn't mean that guideline bans it.  They're only a guidelines about how to deal with these types of topics.  WP:BIO "applies" to Barrack Obama, but that doesn't mean his article should be deleted.  WP:MUSIC "applies" to The Beatles, but it doesn't mean their article should be deleted. --Oakshade (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The area is not a navel base, the plane crashed in a residential areaYahoo/Reuters. Taqi Haider (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the link. "The plane hit a building under construction at a navy housing complex. Several unoccupied buildings nearby caught fire". The base might be in/near a residential area, but it did not crash onto a residential area. MickMacNee (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the housing complex in question is not miles away from the populations, and those several building are small houses not multi story apartment buildings, your statement that a 'dense residential area is unimaginable' is completely wrong. The housing complex is being developed in a densely populated area of area. Taqi Haider (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. Struck the word "dense." Thanks. --Oakshade (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Once again, not every plane crash is notable. These articles and their subsequent (though justified) deletion nominations are getting tedious and annoying.  Grsz 11 03:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: While not every plane crash is notable, every plane crash that involves tens of people in a busy residential neighborhood dying from the crash is notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Classic straw man argument. Nobody here advocating keeping this article is arguing it should be kept because "every plane crash is notable." --Oakshade (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as there were no notable passengers aboard. Presidents, Prime Ministers, Kings, Queens, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: It was a cargo aircraft so few pax are on board. That's NOT what gives the notability. The "plane crashes on ground and kills lots of people on the ground" is what is notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Cargo planes do not carry ministers or royal personal, this specific plane was carrying supplies for Sudan and was on its way to Khartoum before it crashed in a densely populated residential area of ,one of the most populated cities in the world, Karachi. Fortunately the immediate surroundings were under construction and empty. There were fatalities on the ground and the crew of the plane was lost. Taqi Haider (talk) 06:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Seeing an optometrist, tomorrow. GoodDay (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - When a large cargo aircraft crashes into a residential neighborhood and kills lots of people, it is an encyclopedic event that must be documented. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you read this AfD before participating? It's patently obvious you didn't. "Residential neighborhood"? No. "Encyclopedic"? No. Lunalet (talk) 07:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The aircraft crashed in a residential neighborhood, weather or not this is an encyclopedic event is under debate. Taqi Haider (talk) 07:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I would have thought this was notable given the fatalities --Snowded  TALK  06:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that an "as per WP:AIRCRASH"? Also, you "would have thought...", implying your opinion changed. What do you think now? Lunalet (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect that you know that the meaning of the phrase "I would have thought" in English is the same as "I believe to to be the case" with a twinge of surprise that anyone would doubt it --Snowded TALK  08:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep; seems clearly to pass the relevant tests for inclusion. --John (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:VAGUEWAVE. Lunalet (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as per NOTNEWS. MickMacNee's well-founded arguments trump both vendettas fostered by malicious editors and the nonsense being parroted about AIRCRASH, a mere essay which holds no weight against NOTNEWS, a policy. I encourage the misguided and uninformed to reacquaint themselves with Wikipedia's policies. Lunalet (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Based upon the responses to MickMacNee's comments, I conclude that the editors who are in favor of keeping this are well acquainted with Wikipedia policies, and that this is not a vendetta against him.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable incident that easily meets inclusion per the general notability guidance:
 * 1) Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Check.
 * 2) "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Check.
 * 3) "Sources,"[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Check.
 * 4) "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. Check.
 * 5) "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Check too.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your "check"s qualify as VAGUEWAVES. Lunalet (talk) 08:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Commment Anyone else think that Lunalet is a sock of MickMacNee? Lunalet's only contributions (as of typing this) are to this AfD (why would a newbie's first and only contributions be here?), then try to counter-argue keep rationales with citing WP:VAGUEWAVE (a trait MMN does all the time) and his general tone is in the style of MMN.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have messaged Lunalet on the talk page. Taqi Haider (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is yet another attempt by the opposition to level accusations at those voting to delete the article. Lunalet (talk) 08:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Style is MacNee so per WP:Duck it might be an idea to ask for a sock puppet investigation. However it might be someone immitating his style (its not that difficult) in an attempt to get him banned.  Its happened before. --Snowded  TALK  08:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Snowded, it's usually the impersonators that end up indeffed. Mjroots (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We can only be sure after an investigation, I would like to say that Lunalet's vote should be nullified till the sock puppet issue is resolved. Taqi Haider (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to extend a suggestion as well: that Lugnuts' VAGUEWAVE is discounted since he pastes this on EVERY AIRCRASH AFD and because he was canvassed here by Taqi Haider who lacks integrity and honesty. Lunalet (talk) 08:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA might be interesting reading. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 09:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, doesn't interest me. Lunalet (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Lunalet: We all have an obligation to be interested by WP:NPA. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not quite. Lunalet (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, yes, actually, you do. WP:BAN can come into play if you don't. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 06:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're planning to ban me? Lunalet (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but continued uncivil and disruptive behavior will result in people complaining, and your flippant attitude towards WP:NPA, a core policy of the encyclopedia, won't work in your favour. You're citing WP:this and WP:that in amost every comment you make (in fact, some comments are nothing but "WP:essay - signature"), but you have no interest at all in NPA? Very strange. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 06:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but continued uncivil and disruptive behavior will result in people complaining, and your flippant attitude towards WP:NPA, a core policy of the encyclopedia, won't work in your favour. You're citing WP:this and WP:that in amost every comment you make (in fact, some comments are nothing but "WP:essay - signature"), but you have no interest at all in NPA? Very strange. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 06:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Mjroots and Lugnut. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 08:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Um...what? Another WP:PERNOM? Lugnuts' vote essentially said nothing, except containing a couple VAGUEWAVEs. All s/he said can be simplified to this: "This air crash meets GNG". That's all! How unhelpful, unconstructive, and ambiguous. Lunalet (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, another WP:PERNOM; when other people have put things in the way I would, except saying it better than I could, that's what I do. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 09:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Taken straight from WP:PERNOM: what indicates that "you are not hiding a WP:ILIKEIT position" (quote modified slightly to fit this situation)? Lunalet (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:PERNOM is a mere essay; we can hardly invalidate The Bushranger's !vote simply because they felt the same way as a previous editor. bobrayner (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't need to even link WP:PERNOM. I could have just said, "what indicates that you are not hiding an WP:ILIKEIT position"? Lunalet (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The assumption of good faith, actually. But since you insist: this is a major accident that is, IMHO, quite likely to be considered a landmark accident when the Il-76 is discussed in the future. How come you're so desperate to have the article deleted anyway? - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 06:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I voted to delete it because I believe it does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Lunalet (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And you keep attacking every argument that doesn't agree with deleting. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 06:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If I believe the keep arguments are weak and faulty, why should I not call editors out for it? Lunalet (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * procedural keep. If MMN and an SPA say "delete", it must be kept. No prejudice against good-faith re-nomination. East of Borschov 10:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Whose rulebook says that? Don't you think that's a little biased, Mr. East? Lunalet (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Lunalet is an obvious impersonator, he is simply parrotting what I said in the last Afd. Anyone who really thinks I would be stupid enough to be socking with so many out there eager for my blood, has a screw loose. I do indeed have a regular impersonator who wants me banned, but I have to say he is not usually as thorough or persistent as this guy. However, it should be noted that what he says is correct, this and this by Taqi Haider is most definitely innappropriate WP:CANVASSing, and Lugnuts has indeed just copied and pasted his rationale from the previous debate into this one. This seems to be a new variation on his old Afd technique of just copying and pasting the sentence 'keep, meets N through RS and V', or somthing equally VAGUEy and pointless, into Afds. I won't bother copying and pasting my critque of his rationale here, he didn't feel it necessary to respond over there, so I doubt he will answer it here, but funnily enough, it is equaly valied here as it was there. MickMacNee (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Taqi has been advised of WP:Canvass. He is not familiar with AfD, so let's AGF that the canvassing was a genuine mistake. FWIW, I do not believe that MickMacNee is socking either. Mjroots (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, apologies Mick - now having seen more of Lunalet's antics, I'm fairly certain he has nothing to do with you.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, I have no intention of getting you banned. I'm not trying to duplicate your style. You are a great editor, always bringing something valuable and insightful to the table. I laud you for that. Lunalet (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought this guy just came back from a very long vacation, and yet he knows all about everyone and everything. Taqi Haider (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You noticed that too, eh? - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 06:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I know about MickMacNee because I took the time to READ and SIFT THROUGH his contributions. While I was searching for diffs to convict you of canvassing, I read MickMacNee's valuable input at the other AfDs. Again, why do you find it necessary to come after me no matter what I say? Lunalet (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder why you did not find any thing of interest in ANI list? which you frequented before you vacation.Taqi Haider (talk) 07:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Um...what? I just said I found THIS AFD to be of interest. Lunalet (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Snowball Keep: Loath though I am to agree with Mick, his reasoning that he would have to be insane to engage in rabid sockpuppetry in exact mimicry of his style and stance makes good sense, and we can safely dismiss the SPA as a pointy agent provocateur. As far as anything else goes, I wouldn't in his shoes have the stones to raise WP:POINTY allegations, but given the overwhelming consensus against him, it's time to close this AfD.  Six months from now, if there hasn't been any lasting impact from this event, it might be appropriate to file again.  Mere hours after the crash, it most certainly isn't.  If these rancorous day-after-the-crash AfDs are, as Grsz opines, tedious and annoying, how about we not file them quite so quickly?  No one's handing out awards for speediest AfDs filed.   Ravenswing  14:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This vote was canvassed here abusively by User:Taqi Haider, the creator of this article. Lunalet (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Another keep. As far as I can tell it easily passes the GNG; widespread coverage by multiple independent sources. WP:NOTNEWS does not automatically exclude anything that's news; and if we're to have an accurate and up-to-date encyclopaedia then some article creation is bound to be about current events. That's fine as long as they satisfy the usual criteria such as GNG. bobrayner (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 *  Keep per arguments provided by Mjroots and Lugnuts. hardly the routine news that WP:NOTNEWS applies to--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - we have very very little on Sudanese aviation history, or involvement with aid programme air crashes. In accordance with Countering systemic bias, this article should not be deleted. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh...when did that become a reason? Because we have too little material on the Whoopagaloopa tribe in Africa, we should write an article about that? Lunalet (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Taking your WP:OTHERSTUFF argument seriously for a moment: If we can find a reliable source on the Whoopagaloopa, why not? This is an encyclopaedia; coverage should not be limited to anglophones, or white people, or developed countries. CSB is a very real concern. bobrayner (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Where are the lasting effects and continued coverage? I'm not seeing anything. Lunalet (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - To counter the SPA. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Incompetent, unconstructive, biased, and unhelpful. Lunalet (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't put yourself down. You have much to offer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unlike yourself. Your comments here have been incompetent, unconstructive, biased, and unhelpful. Lunalet (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We'll let the admin decide that. He labeled the AIV report on you as "stale", presumably because you had stopped editing (for awhile). What's your personal interest in this particular event that you feel the need to argue with everyone who said "Keep"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I took the time to ponder why this article should be deleted and to sift through this discussion. Why shouldn't I defend my position? Are you disposed to not stand up for your beliefs? Lunalet (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Support for bugs keep! Taqi Haider (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Now we're going to start voting for votes, eh? Lunalet (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NOTNEWS. That policy was never intended to exclude recent notable events simply because they are recent and notable.  It's more about routine coverage of routine events.  A commercial flight going down with multiple fatalities is a relatively rare event, contrary to the nomination statement.  Each event like this draws a significant investigation with a lot of in-depth coverage and analysis.  World-wide flight regulation agencies will open cases on such foreign events precisely because they are worth tracking in terms of their enduring impact.  If this were some general aviation crash then I would probably vote differently. Gigs (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * More speculation and no facts. Where is the "in-depth coverage and analysis" you purport to exist? Lunalet (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - check pictues here and here, I will assume that account named lunalet was never created. Taqi Haider (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that assumption ain't gonna pass. Lunalet (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stay on topic. Taqi Haider (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's convenient of you to deviate and then blame it on me. More dishonesty. Lunalet (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for continuing your personal attacks here, as it will make the potentially blocking admin's job much easier. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Typical misapplication of WP:NOTNEWS. This event was more than just notable, being covered in diverse reliable sources and while it may not mean much to those thinking "planes just fall out of the sky", well they don't fall everyday - and where the crash occured, this event was certainly notable and recieved media coverage. It is also significant from the point that this is the third aviation accident within 4 months in Pakistan - as the media is putting it. Mar4d (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid some systematic bias may also be behind this article's nomination, particularly when one reads articles such as Emirates Flight 407; Mar4d (talk) 07:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Emirates Flight 407 was also taken to AfD. Mjroots (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree that citing "NOTNEWS" on major aviation disasters, involving fatalities and large aircraft like the Il-76 is, is a misapplication of that policy. There is nothing routine about these disasters, and they prompt far more thorough investigations than car accidents. If this were a mere emergency landing, or an accident with a GA aircraft, NOTNEWS would probably apply since those events are far more common. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently a notable accident, given the aircraft, the situation, and subsequent media coverage.  wacky wace  19:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Wackyace. The references seem sufficient for this article to meet WP:N and the topic meets the inclusion criteria at WP:AIRCRASH (which, while only an essay, is widely accepted and has been successfully used as a reason to delete articles about minor incidents in the past). Nick-D (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How does it meet AIRCRASH exactly? (note that it has recently been rewritten) It doesn't appear to meet either the old version or the new one, (which requires more than just meeting N). And I think you are wrong about how accepted it is, in recent Afds when people have cited AIRCRASH as the reason for deletion, most people voting keep have just completely and utterly ignored it. MickMacNee (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment While I'm neutral on this one, it's hard to deny that it's WP:SNOW applies pretty clearly. I'm surprised it still hasn't closed.  Mandsford 21:58, 5 December 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.