Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tajik National Guard Helicopter crash


 * 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   no consensus. There is a clear consensus, that deletion isn't required there, however the participants of the discussion are split about wether a standalone article for this crash is varranted. A more detailed discussion about this (also if a merge is needed), can take place at the articles talk page (if desired). (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 16:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Tajik National Guard Helicopter crash

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable military accident per WP:AIRCRASH William 12:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  -William 12:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions.  -William 12:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -William 12:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Merge to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present). Tragic but non-notable military aircrft accident. The article says "deadliest accident in Tajikistan since 1997" - if it was the deadliest since the country became independent it would be notable, but as it is, it fails WP:GNG. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge all relevant details to Military of Tajikistan and then Delete. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. 28 fatalities is easily enough for notability. If this had happened in the UK or USA we wouldn't even be having this discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, we would, because a lack of notability is a lack of notability, and number of deaths does not confer notability unless it was the accident with the most deaths in a country's history. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All I can say is "oh, come off it!" Do you genuinely believe that an article on the crash of an American or British or Australian or Canadian aircraft which cost 28 lives would ever in a million years be deleted? Really? Honestly? No, thought not. This is a perfect example of systemic bias. Tajikistan doesn't have a great internet presence, especially if one only does English language searches, so of course it's not going to be covered so much. Undoubtedly it was in the print media in Tajikistan itself! -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, it's very nice to know that you know so well what I think. How about assuming a little good faith? And even if it was "in the print media in Tajikistan itself", it would still run up against WP:NOTNEWSPAPER/WP:PERSISTENCE. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I do assume good faith. I just don't think this has been thought through. And I don't buy for a minute that an article on such a crash in an English-speaking country would ever be deleted in an AfD. There's no need to quote guidelines at me; common sense (i.e. a crash in which that many people died is clearly notable, no matter what country it occurred in) trumps them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Except a crash in which that many people died, unless it is the deadliest crash in that country or one of the dead was a Wiki-notable person (a bluelink), is not notable, no matter what country it occured in. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's called an opinion, and it's one I disagree with. And that, after all, is why we have AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Very true - but it's also the opinion of WP:AIRCRASH, the relevant essay-standard-consensus-page-thingfromanotherworldyou. ) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present). Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep a large number fatalities is what ordinary people consider notable. The specialists at the project may have their own rules, but its the overall consensus that determines inclusion. I do have respect for their attempt to make technical distinctions, but sometimes they do not match common sense.  DGG ( talk ) 08:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present) per the above. Nick-D (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems notable to me. More citations are needed, however. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - we just managed to delete the article for the helicopter crash in Romania by the Israeli 118 Squadron (see all details at 118 Squadron (Israel)), and I would say in response to Necrothesp that I do not believe that we are doing anything but cluttering Wikipedia by creating articles for (Western or other) peacetime military aircraft crashes that claim only c.30 lives. Note this will be only half-systematic from 2005 or so, when Wikipedia really got going !! *Massive* recentism. There is *much* more context added by working them into operation, unit, campaign, or other articles, and we don't have to go around creating all the required associated links!! Buckshot06 (talk) 09:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And I clearly believe that we are not "cluttering" Wikipedia in any way by creating these articles. I'm afraid I do not see crowing about "managing to delete" a legitimate article as being a positive thing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present). Subject of article does not appear to pass WP:EFFECT, therefore not warranting its own article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:36, 7 February 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.