Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Airlines Flight 1878


 * 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) &mdash;  Yash! (Y) 05:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Turkish Airlines Flight 1878

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nominated on behalf of IP, who requested it at Help desk (but I do not necessarily support deletion.) IP's argument seems to be: Wikipedia is not a news summary service; this is without doubt a news story; but with no deaths, injuries, or total hull loss and no reliable source predicting changes to procedures or regulations as a result of the accident it fails WP:AIRCRASH the projects own guidelines for an article RJFJR (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  14:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, not policy. It is too soon to tell if there will be a hull loss or whether or not any procedures / regulations will change. The aircraft is probably a write-off, but a lack of a write off or injuries and deaths does not necessarily mean that the event is non-notable - q.v. British Airways Flight 9, China Airlines Flight 006 and Qantas Flight 32, all of which did not result in a hull loss. That the aircraft was substantially damaged, and flew in such a condition for 20 minutes, couple with the damage sustained pushes the accident sufficiently up the notability scale that we can justify an article on Wikipedia. This view has already been expressed at WikiProject level. Mjroots (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: WP:AIRCRASH does not apply, it is to determine the inclusion of accidents in aircraft type articles, not stand-alone accident articles. It says, "By consensus this should not be used to determine whether a stand-alone article should exist or not." This makes WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per above - NOTAIRCRASH is an essay & all that, Passes GNG, No reason for deletion. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep per above Transasia07 (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Keep. Again, just like Flight 162, this article meets 2 of the 3 guidelines in the criteria for Wikipedia articles on aircraft accidents (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Aircraft_accidents_and_incidents) when it needs to meet only 1. The aircraft suffered severe damage on the first botched landing almost tearing the wing apart and it skidded off the runway on the second attempt.A340swazzen (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Just because it wasn't a hull loss, doesn't mean it's not notable. Is this the same person who [miserably] attempted to delete Asiana Airlines Flight 162?Iloveplanes2003 (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't. Mjroots (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: As others have stated, WP:AIRCRASH refers to other pages referencing the crash, not to the page on the crash itself. This incident was severe and resulted in considerable damage; making it notable. There is no reason to delete it.BinarySquareRoot (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2015 (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.