Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SiLA Airlines Flight 42

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 no consensus. No prejudice to a renomination in the future. Daniel (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SiLA Airlines Flight 42

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Everytime a plane falls out of the sky is not a notable event. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in the article indicates anything noteworthy for a stand alone article and in particularly "All 18 people on board survived" means it doesnt really meeet the bar of notability. MilborneOne (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not significant enough. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An airliner of a similar size to that which was involved in the loss of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky Air Flight 251 (2021) was written off. That all on board the flight survived is not a reason to say that the notability threshold has not been reached. There is no WP:MINIMUMDEATHS for a reason. Again, as with PetroPavlosk-Kamchatsky Air Flight 251, the accident happened in a country were coverage is not going to be wall-to-wall, but what coverage there is means that GNG is passed. Mjroots (talk) 09:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A regularly scheduled airline flight with passengers crashes resulting in the destruction of the aircraft. This is not a routine occurrence like a snowstorm in Chicago, WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. The level of coverage easily meets WP:GNG... More sources are available on the Russian version of this article, but there is also plenty of English-language coverage, like Reuters, Associated Press, Aviation Week, TASS, Yahoo News, and more than I care to list here. More sources are likely to develop, since the event only happened a few days ago. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Above reason. Also some users like delete articles.Yyang Sr. GakupoKaito (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It wasnt just an unplanned landing. The plane crashed into a swamp, during the crash it turned upside down with the chasis facing the sky. The fact that (miraculously) no one had died shouldnt exclude articles about major plane crashes from existing on wikipedia 212.74.201.233 (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Antonov An-28 and/or the article about the destination airport (which surprisingly doesn't seem to exist). Per long-standing community consensus pursuant to WP:NOTNEWS, hull-loss accidents without fatalities go in the airport article and/or the aircraft article. There are plenty of examples on Wikipedia, many involving aircraft much larger than this one with more spectacular damage (e.g. American Airlines Flight 102). Carguychris (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Carguychris: - are you sure about that? Read my comment above very carefully. Mjroots (talk) 10:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots:, I read your comment and I disagree with your rationale. Airliner accidents inevitably invite press coverage. Your rationale would justify a Wikipedia article for almost every airliner hull-loss accident, anywhere, under any circumstances. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTNEWS, the line must be drawn somewhere. Carguychris (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without checking, I think that in every case I linked, the aircraft was not written off, yet we have articles. I suppose there'll now be another flurry of AfDs. Mjroots (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Several of those articles have already been through AFDs, with similar arguments for deletion proposed. I think Sully's aircraft was written off, but it's in a museum now. RecycledPixels (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that claiming that there is a long-standing community consensus that hull-loss accidents without fatalities go in the airport article and/or the aircraft article is very inaccurate. I think that a more accurate interpretation of the community consensus lies along the lines of the guidelines outlined in the WP:AIRCRASH essay. In practice, as well, recent AFDs fall along the same lines. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loganair Flight 6780, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Astana Flight 1388, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 1175 (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 328 (now a GA) just for some a handful recent examples of aviation incidents with no fatalities that after a community discussion at AFD, were kept. I also disagree that WP:NOTNEWS applies here, can you specify which of the four points in that guideline you feel this article violates? This is not a routine news event like a traffic accident that shuts down the freeway during rush hour. It is also not very similar to an incident of an airline skidding off the runway during a landing in adverse conditions like AA102, which you mention. This is an airline taking off during regular service, with paying passengers aboard, and crash landing mid-flight because of a dual engine failure, resulting in the destruction of the aircraft. Definitely not routine. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There has been thousands of non-fatal airline accidents and only a hand-full have articles, if this article is kept then the related project will appreciate help in creating the large number of non-fatal airliner accidents that happened in regular service. All of which would have attracted news coverage at the time. MilborneOne (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2021 (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.