Select Page

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Tawang Town Mil Mi-17 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 keep. If you don't agree with WP:AIRCRASH, try to get it changed. WP:CSD#G5 does not apply here as multiple people have made substantial edits to the article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Tawang Town Mil Mi-17 crash

2011 Tawang Town Mil Mi-17 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reasonably disputed PROD. This was a tragic accident, but, while it meets WP:AIRCRASH's (the revlevant notability essay) standards for inclusion in the type article's accident section, I believe it fails notability for a stand-alone article, as there does not appear to have been significant enduring coverage of the accident beyond the initial spurt of news coverage following the crash (WP:PERSISTENCE) and there are, as far as I can determine, been no changes to aviation regulations or procedures as a result of the crash (WP:EFFECT). (As a footnote, this article was also created by a confirmed sockpuppet of community banned User:Ryan kirkpatrick, and has had little significant contribution from other editors, but a G5 at the time of creation was declined with reason "Deleting this article really won't help the encyclopedia"). The Bushranger One ping only 21:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 22:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mil Mi-17#Accidents and notable incidents, where it already has a suitable mention. If it is kept it needs a strong copy edit as it looks like English wasn't the author's first language. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seventeen people died. That meets the notability threshhold for accidents as far as I'm concerned. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It trumps the WP:GNG? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • How many times exactly does it need to be said that Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy (a policy, as opposed to a guideline as is GNG)? Talk of not being allowed to "trump GNG" suggests that AfD discussions are utterly pointless, which is clearly not the case or we wouldn't have them! If guidelines are applied to the letter we may as well just let administrators delete any article which does not slavishly meet their criteria without discussion. Incidents in countries such as India are never going to be so well-covered online as incidents in countries such as the UK or USA; deleting them because of their lower coverage leads to systemic bias. Would an article about a similar crash in the USA or UK be kept? Of course it would. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, I think that while there probably are cases of systematic bias in coverage of air accident articles, I don't see this as an example of it - I'm fairly sure that this event would not be covered in an individual article wherever it happened. While there hasn't always been complete agreement about what the criteria of WP:AIRCRASH should be, I remember from when I was actively trying to coordinate a rewrite that there was consensus that the number of fatalities wasn't a good guide to notability. See also WP:BIGNUMBER. Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Would an article about a similar crash in the USA or UK be kept?" No, actually, it wouldn't, not without continuing coverage which this accident lacks. I'm a strong supporter of WP:CSB, but if there's a lack of notability there's a lack of notability, whether the event occured in Kalamazoo or Timbuktu. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I completely disagree. I'm having trouble finding a single aircraft crash with this level of death toll in the last ten years that does not have an article on Wikipedia. Many crashes with much lower death tolls have articles, many of them with far less notability than this one. I know OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument, but even so... -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • If those other articles don't have continuing coverage per WP:PERSISTENCE or repercussions in the aviation world per WP:EFFECT, then they should be deleted as well - assuming that they aren't scheduled-airliner crashes, which only generally require one of the "fatalities/hull loss/procedure change" troika, not all three. Now then, that said, after further digging this appears this may fall under the "one" criterion, in which case I would withdraw the AfD - were this not a creation of a banned user, in which case it should be deleted without prejustice for recreation by an editor in good standing. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a creation of a banned user, the article should be deleted. Such deletion should be without prejudice to an editor in good standing creating their own version of the article in accordance with the normal Wikipedia rules including (but not limited to) WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:GNG and WP:AIRCRASH, which the accident meets as the Mi-17 is well in excess of 5,700kg MTOW. I'd be happy to facilitate the creation of a new version of the article at this title if any editor wants to take it on. Mjroots (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.