Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Air Sweden Flight 294


 * 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.  Sandstein  11:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

West Air Sweden Flight 294

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable cargo plane crash. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve: This fits WP:NOTE as this is a fatal aviation crash. More details can be added to improve the article, but it will never lose notability. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It has to be notable in the first place. See below. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fatal aviation crashes of cargo flights are almost invariably not kept, as they are not notable. Alas, they happen regularly enough that they are only notable if they were of airliners, cause a large stir in regulations from their consequences, or otherwise manage to demonstrate WP:PERSISTENCE. The first is a resounding "no", the second doesn't look likely and can't be assumed to be otherwise, and the third is WP:TOOSOON. What we're left with is a burst of news coverage that, in this day and electronic age, is not enough to pass WP:GNG. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and Wait. It is too early to decide whether this is notable enough for Wikipedia. In the meantime the article does need to be improved greatly. 111.69.110.121 (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. As already said, this crash isn't very notable. It didn't get much news coverage at all, and that shows how much the crash concerns the whole world. It's not of a major airline, not a major aircraft and not many casualties and not much that really stands out. Right now, there is no reason to keep the article and so it should be deleted. Z-small-VA-64x88.svg

Rihaz (Talk to me • Stuff I did • Global) 07:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per The Bushranger's comments that cargo flight accidents are rarely notable for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and Improve. This aircraft literally fell out of the sky from cruising altitude which is a fairly unusual failure mode and deserves attention. Just because it was a cargo aircraft with two crew and little media attention does not justify deletion. There are hundreds of CRJs flying every day. Manfredj (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And those hundreds of CRJs are relevant in what fashion? There is long-established WP:CONSENSUS that cargo aircraft flights that do not result in persistent coverage or regulatory changes are not notable; "little media attention" does justify deletion in a sense as "media attention" is how notability is established. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The accident is notable, nomination premature. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  09:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE. Please explain in what way the accident is notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The CRJ200 is an airliner, like the DC-3, the causes for the crash may affect passenger versions as well. Generally speaking: According to some comments above, a B747 cargo flight crash may not qualify for an article, but when a B737 shears off a landing gear with no fatalities it is noteworthy (Avia Traffic Company Flight 768), or an engine fire while taxiing (Dynamic Airways Flight 405) ? I neither see any logic nor respect for human life in the above arguments. --Uli Elch (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact the aircraft is an airliner is irrelevant. The relevance would be if it was in airline service. The crash "may" affect passenger versions, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Other articles do indeed exist and in both of those cases involved airline flights that resulted in injuries to passengers, which meets the consensus for notability; a 747 on a cargo flight that crashed with only the loss of the crew and with no regulatory aftereffects is, in fact, not notable, as "respect for human life" has no relevance to whether or not an article is included in Wikipedia; Wikipedia is not a memorial. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per above. No reason to delete an important accident without any doubts. - Gsvadds (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSIMPORTANT. It's WP:TOOSOON to call this accident important; please explain how the accident is notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Per some of the arguments above, some of the following may need to be remembered. Wikipedia is not the news, and Wikipedia is not a memorial; nor is Wikipedia a crystal ball. "It's notable" is not an argument that carries weight unless it's explained how it is notable; "it's important" is, likewise, a long-established argument to avoid. Please, when arguing for this article to be kept, make policy-based arguments that explain how this accident is notable. Saying simply that it's notable because it's important and/or that it's notable because it's a tragedy do not help in establishing a policy-based consensus on whether or not this article should be kept or deleted. If you make a calm, reasoned explanation of your position, you're more likely to change peoples' minds and win support for your position; if you can't, then (put simply) you're not very likely to do either of those at all. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Bombardier CRJ200 is a largely used plane (more than 900) with a large seating capacity (more than 40). News coverage is not a valid criteria and anyway news coverage has been important in Sweden and Norway. Cargo is also important for planes market. Wykx 13:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:BIGNUMBER. The seating capacity is irrelevant for a cargo flight. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Numbers were given to illustrate effective quality of the argument and not as such. The seating capacity makes this aircraft important for passenger transportation. Wykx 23:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is utterly irrelevant to whether or not this accident is notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry but in aviation safety, please give a past example of "not notable" crash concerning a large aircraft. Wykx 08:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Flight 9963. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There were no fatalities from flight United Airlines Flight 9963. Wykx 23:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep:This is the first accident from West Air Sweden. The page does need improving though.--Planecrashexpert (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The first accident in a country is notable. The first accident of a carrier is niot. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: The difference between Wikimedia and news is not the topic, but how the article is written (and if it's written like news, better re-write instead of deleting). J 1982 (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: "Bushranger" says: "The relevance would be if it was in airline service." Thereby he confirms the relevance: it definitely was (read Airline). By the way, he appears to be almost the only proponent of deletion; 8 others say "Keep". --Uli Elch (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Applied WP:COMMONSENSE means "airline service" = "scheduled flight carrying passangers". Please do not put words in my mouth in an attempt to WP:WIKILAWYER. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: UPS/Fedex, etc. flights have crashed with fatalities and their articles are kept just the same. This is a Transport Category aircraft and this case will likely have strong repercussions in the CRJ world. 68.144.218.20 (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Likely" is not a quality that confers notability. Other stuff exists but has no bearing on whether or not this accident is notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep for now - the circumstances surrounding this crash are not indicative of pilot error (IMvHO). The investigation will eventually get to the bottom of this loss, at which point it will be clearer as to the notability of the event. Mjroots (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Too early. If this turns out to be nothing spectacular, it can be deleted later. We already have many articles on crashes with 0 fatalities. Norway/Sweden are countries without many air traffic accidents. --2003:71:CF36:C782:E8D1:E9B:62AA:E298 (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - as per above the incident took place 3 days ago, it is best to wait for more information to come out on the accident before nominating again for deletion. These things can take months to investigate. NordicDragon  Talkpage 13:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - A modern aircraft in modern airspace, of significant size, does not drop out of the sky often; this is quite unusual, and so notable for now. Additionally, easily meets the weight limit for large aircraft and two related notability requirements (hull loss, death) of WP:AIRCRASH Leondz (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep for now Let us see why the aircraft dropped like a stone, a very rare occurrence.--Petebutt (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a very notable crash, breakup in-flight is VERY unusual. 6000m in 50 seconds does not happen in the aviation industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.166.59 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 January 2016‎
 * Keep - this is a special and interesting case of a plane that just crashes without any problem ahead of crash. It is too early to say that it should be deleted. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and Improve - What happened to the pilots? It's not just mail that was lost. What caused the crash? It could be an indicator of something more to follow. Mowster (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, appears to meet WP:GNG with a number of the references being reliable. Although, agree with nom that wp is not news. could The Bushranger please provide some links to "consensus that cargo flights/crashes(?) are not notable"(please excuse my adlibbing) for us non-aviation wikipedians. thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ,, , . - The Bushranger One ping only 23:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * thankyou for the links The Bushranger, these i believe tip the balance to Delete. I note some of the keepers suggest leaving the article for now to see the results of investigations so WP:TOOSOON also applies, if these investigations result in the subject becoming notable the article can be resurrected. This crash is already covered here West Air Sweden and here Bombardier CRJ200, so a Redirect to one of these may be appropriate? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For the two first examples given there were no fatalities. For the An-12, this type is banned since some years so another accident is not notable. As for the Alaska Airlines flight, it was conducted under military operations regulations. Wykx 16:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There are also several articles covering cargo aircraft accidents, both with and without casualties. Each accident (and incident) needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Mjroots (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Significant, large airline crash with more than one fatality aboard.Juneau Mike (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2016 (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.