| Revision as of 01:40, 16 September 2014 editHighInBC (talk | contribs)Administrators41,786 edits Closing this← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:43, 16 September 2014 edit undoHighInBC (talk | contribs)Administrators41,786 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| {{closing}} | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' | |||
| <!--Template:Afd top | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result was '''Redirect to ]'''. ] 01:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| Line 33: | Line 39: | ||
| *'''Move to close''' - not sure why this was relisted... there is a single editor in favour of retention and four policy-based arguments for deletion/redirection. How much consensus do we need? ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 01:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC) | *'''Move to close''' - not sure why this was relisted... there is a single editor in favour of retention and four policy-based arguments for deletion/redirection. How much consensus do we need? ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 01:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | |||
Revision as of 01:43, 16 September 2014
- 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 Redirect to MASwings#Incidents_and_Accidents. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 01:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
MASwings Flight 3002
- MASwings Flight 3002 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Do you have any evidence that would confirm notability?--Petebutt (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS, GNG, AIRCRASH. uNFORTUNATE YES, NOTABLE NO. Petebutt (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment @Petebutt:, I will not object to the deletion of the other two aviation accidents and incidents articles that I created, but this one is an exception ( ). If this gets deleted, we should just delete Haughey Air AgustaWestland AW139 crash, 2012 Philippine Piper Seneca crash, and so on. - TheChampionMan1234 03:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The retention or deletion of those other articles is irrelevant to whether or not this one should be deleted or kept. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Tragic? Yes. Notable? No. There were 16 people on board and two died. The other examples given above were whole-of-aircraft losses where everyone on board died. Each claimed the life of an independently notable person. The flights don't inherit notability from those on board but are obviously subject to increased media attention because of particular passengers. The fact that an authority launched a routine investigation does not substantiate notability. St★lwart 05:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Correction: one person survived the 2012 Philippine Piper Seneca crash but it had broader consequences in terms of the aviation industry. St★lwart 05:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Commercial airliner crash that involved fatalities, which is criteria that passes WP:AIRCRASH. The nom has only thrown up a WP:VAGUEWAVE rationale. --Oakshade (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- WP:AIRCRASH is an essay and one that contradicts policy and guidelines. From the essay itself - "Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting.". St★lwart 10:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Besides which, that essay considers the aircraft in question to be a "light aircraft", not an "airliner", and the crash in question doesn't meet either of the criteria specified for light aircraft. So even if we give the essay credence (we shouldn't) the subject still doesn't meet the criteria established there. St★lwart 10:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- It was the nom who used WP:AIRCRASH, which this passes, not me. And a 20 person aircraft is not "light aircraft". Smaller than a 747, yes, but not "light." A 2-seater would be "light." I might as well just say "Keep per WP:NOTNEWS, GNG, AIRCRASH" and that would be just as valid as the nom has given zero rational as to why it fails those guidelines.--Oakshade (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- That kind of misses the point. We shouldn't be using AIRCRASH at all. But given it has been mentioned, the essay uses gross weight of an aircraft (not number of seats) to differentiate between "light aircraft" and other aircraft. The aircraft in question falls well short of the gross weight specified and so is (according to the essay) a "light aircraft". They aren't my definitions and I think we're better off ignoring the essay and using WP:EVENT (which this also fails). St★lwart 20:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- It was the nom who used WP:AIRCRASH, which this passes, not me. And a 20 person aircraft is not "light aircraft". Smaller than a 747, yes, but not "light." A 2-seater would be "light." I might as well just say "Keep per WP:NOTNEWS, GNG, AIRCRASH" and that would be just as valid as the nom has given zero rational as to why it fails those guidelines.--Oakshade (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete or Redirect to MASwings#Incidents and Accidents, where this accident is already mentioned. Unfortunately, it does not meet WP:EVENT because practically all coverage of this crash stopped within two to three days and I see no evidence of any long term effects like a major NTSB investigation, changes to how the builder builds or maintains their aircraft, criminal charges or penalties against the airline, lawsuits from survivors, etc. Yes, two people died, but we do not have articles on every single aviation incident that resulted in a fatality, do we (like the recent jet fighter crash that killed five people in Libya or small plane crash in Ontario that killed one)? The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 08:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to MASwings#Incidents and Accidents per Legendary Ranger. This doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria for a stand-alone article. Boleyn (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect as stated above. WP:AIRCRASH only sets forth the starting point for consideration and, as discussed above, this article does not even meet those guidelines.--Rpclod (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Move to close - not sure why this was relisted... there is a single editor in favour of retention and four policy-based arguments for deletion/redirection. How much consensus do we need? St★lwart 01:26, 16 September 2014 (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.