Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Airlines Flight 1476


 * 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) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 10:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Turkish Airlines Flight 1476

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No deaths. No damages to the aircraft. No changes in procedures following the event. Actually, not notable. Jetstreamer Talk 19:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - well written and good sourcing. seem to pass wp:gng.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as I'm the nominator.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS...William 21:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Close call, but a hijacking brings up different criteria than a crash. There's a lot of coverage, hijackings are somewhat rare. I could be persuaded it's news and delete, but I'm on the fence. Shadowjams (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - As a hijacking this seems to be sufficiently notable for inclusion. Checking WP:CRIME and such may be inorder, as WP:AIRCRASH does not apply. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I found the article well done but catagories wrong as noted above. If this was part of a series of hijacking style articles, with its own (Hijacking events?) category, then I would support it more strongly. It reads better than a news article, but rather long for an encyclopedic entry on the subject.  I would encourage a writer who does this well writing and try to look for a way to save in some form.  Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Complies with WP:CRIME. Qantasplanes (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes GNG, As it was not a crash, AIRCRASH is inapplicable here. Mjroots (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - No valid rationale for deletion has been presented, per WP:DEL-REASON. The nomination doesn't even mention sources, or a potential lack thereof, about the topic. Topic notability is based upon WP:N and WP:GNG, not personal opinions about topic notability. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He was using the criterion that have been adopted through editing for aircraft accidents and codified in WP:AIRCRASH. Which as it turns out doesn't apply here as it's a WP:CRIME, of course, but that was the basis of the nomination. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:19, 9 August 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.