Talk:2010 IAF Sikorsky CH-53 crash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Major revamp and undeletion[edit]

The result of the AFD which was held in January 2012 was Delete although it was very close to a no consensus (this happened unfortunately because the article was significantly expanded while the AfD took place and thus the final result didn't fully reflect the state of the article when the voting ended). Meanwhile, in the recent weeks, over six months after the last AfD took place, I have significantly expanded and improved the article in my sandbox together with the user Activism1234 in order to justify bringing it back to the mainspace. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The facts haven't changed since since the AFD. Polishing the article doesn't change the fact that what happened wasn't considered notable enough for a standalone article....William 21:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Article's name[edit]

I decided to change the name of the article to the most commonly used name format in similar aviation accidents in Wikipedia (see example). Which name do you think would be better - "2010 IAF Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallion crash" or "2010 IAF Sikorsky CH-53 crash"? Do you have a better suggestion? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the latter. --Activism1234 21:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
On second thought, that does seem to be the best name for the article. As a result I've changed it to that name. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... Although this article was previously deleted, the amount of content then compared to now, along with the refs used and the amount of refs, is a significant difference. Now, there are a wide amount of reliable references used, not just "local" references, and the content has been significantly expanded to include an official investigation by Romania and Israel, among much other content. The crash is significant for a few reasons, namely revealing defects in Israel's aging air force airplanes, as well as strengthening ties between two countries. There are 291,000,000 search results for "romania israel crash" on Google. This article is much more significant, has much more content and references than say Sun Way Flight 4412 or Zalingei Tarco Airlines Antonov An-24 crash or Merpati Nusantara Airlines Flight 836, which are just 3 other examples of aircraft crashes in 2009 that have articles. --Activism1234 21:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Those crashes you all cite are commercial aviation which are guided by another set of criteria from military crashes. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument against deletion. Expanding the article doesn't change the fact that it doesn't meet WP notability guidelines for aviation accidents....William 22:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I explained the notability above, along with the fact it received significant coverage. --Activism1234 22:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Let me note I changed the dates on two articles used as references. They were published in 2010 not 2012. It gave the misleading impression of this being the news again.
Nothing has altered since the AFD. The additional content is a case of WP:BOMBARDMENT. More references doesn't change notability nor does listing the people who died in the incident. BTW WP:GHITS isn't an argument either....William 22:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
A lot has altered since the AfD. The additional content is significant content compared to when it was deleted, and helps establish notability years later. The fact that one of the dates was wrong in a reference tag which doesn't even appear on the article itself is beyond my control, thanks for fixing that, but please don't claim it was intentional. Another primary reason for the deletion was because it was only covered a short amount of time after the event, something which the new content has showed is not true, and coverage continued even a year after. Lastly, I will note that the AfD was very very close, and that was a second AfD, the first one was less close. It was improved, got deleted again but only barely, and now got significantly altered and should stay. --Activism1234 22:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
The administrator who comes on the G4 should note that much of the added material, aka the EL section, just repeats links that are being used for inline citations. All inline citations and articles added to the article with one exception(That one being Sept 2010 2011) are from 2010. The article has been spruced up, but nothing of consequence has happened since the AFD....William 22:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
That's a downright lie - note this 2011 article being used. Before, I don't even think there was an "impact" section. --Activism1234 22:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I've found other articles from 2011 that I'm adding. --Activism1234 23:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Five EL, 4 of which are IC already. 5th article was the 2011 one I acknowledged. I'm not lying, what we have here is padding by repetition. BTW I yanked the 4 out of the EL section....William 23:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not referring to external links, I'm reffering to references. I also added another 2 articles from 2011. Please stop trying to circumvent the normal AfD process in favor of speedy deletion of an article that an editor worked for a long time on to ensure that it could remain... --Activism1234 23:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
This article is nothing like the previous state it was in, it's been significantly fixed up. The previous AfD was a very very close vote, as noted by the closing admin. This may very well have solved all issues. It's not right to just go ahead and speedy delete it like that. --Activism1234 23:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I even found some articles now from 2012 that I'm adding. --Activism1234 23:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Clearly you don't understand wikipedia policies. OTHERSTUFFEXIST, GHITS, ISNOTAMEMORIAL, and now WP:DRV. I didn't circumvent AFD, you and the recreator of this article did. You didn't go to DRV. Again nothing has changed to this incident since the AFD to make it notable. All that has been done is the article has been rewritten....William 23:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I was never even told anything about going to DRV. All that has been done is a ton of new information has been added, new articles from 2011 and 2012 have been added, information on the official investigation was added, information on a memorial being constructed by Romania was added, references were upgraded and placed more, etc. I'm getting the feeling you haven't looked at the state of the article it was previously in. If you think it's not notable, take it to AfD. As the previous AfD showed, it was a very very close vote, and it's very likely that will have changed now, regardless of your personal opinion. --Activism1234 23:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
You don't understand WP:RS. Blogs don't fit that criteria. Oh and your IC for something happening in 2012 is from 2011. So that the whole new section is gone.
I don't believe for one bit not knowing about DRV. The AFD you keep quoting actually mentioned DRV. You falsely accused me of lying before. And you haven't taken that back...William 23:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
i'M stepping away till an administrator comes. An editor who has clearly shown they don't know at least 4 WP policies and has accused me falsely of lying and won't retract it or apologize is not worth any more time....William 23:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, DRV is irrelevant to me, I wasn't the one who created this article again. Secondly, I did a ctrl-find search in the AfD for "DRV" just now... Nothing. I've tried looking for "dispute resolution" in the closing admin comments... Nothing... Same goes for any comments there. Please don't attempt to read my mind or make false assumptions. I'm not sure why you're so persistent with getting this article deleted, but if you're going to talk about lying, you should perhaps consider your statemetns above that "clearly" I don't understand Wikipedia policies (a flat-out lie), that I definitely knew that for some reason this should go to DRV (a flat-out lie), etc. I'm trying to help make this article better, not get it speedily deleted based on a very very close AfD that it could very well likely survive. If you think this article isn't significant - go to AfD and make your case. If you're right, it will get deleted.
In regards to "lying," I'd like to point out you asked me to retract something at 23:34, then didn't bother waiting for a response and just said I haven't retracted it at 23:39. That's 5 minutes later. People need time to write stuff. Firstly, you weren't clear at all - you wrote that all refs were from 2010, except 1 which was from 2010 too. Forgive me if I said that was an outright lie and pointed to a 2011 article...

--Activism1234 23:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it interesting when an editor claims others don't know policy... Then goes and violates policy? --Activism1234 23:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (the article was significantly expanded with many sources added since the previous deletion discussion which was almost no-consensus ) --Ankh.Morpork 00:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Except almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenade throwing. WP:DRV was where this was supposed to be taken. WP:Consensus can change but recreating a article first and then demanding that others prove notability hasn't changed isn't the way to do it. The creator of the article should know that. His user pages acknowledges him to being of the busiest wikipedians.00:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Not really. TheCuriousGnome may be amongst the most 2000 active editors (I don't know if that's true or not), but that doesn't mean he necessarily knows what DRV means. I'm not even sure what you're saying is mandatory. The only place where it even says "deletion review" is at the very top, and not as part of the admin's closing comments, plus the article was created again a second-time around without a deletion review I believe. The specific text also says "such as" and also includes the article's talk page as an appropriate venue, and seems to be referring to subsequent comments in regards to the archived debate - not to create the page again. That indication isn't given. Here's what it says. "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." So yes, I think it's completely reasonable that TheCuriousGnome didn't know to take it to DRV [just as you didn't know that an editor other than the creator can remove a CSD tag] - and I'm not even sure that's required... --Activism1234 01:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation[edit]

The Sikorsky article-

The rescue operation was very complex, as it was impossible to land near the crash site, leaving as the only options a hike along a steep mountainous path or a rope descent from the air.

A Israeli newspaper-

The rescue operation was complex, since it was impossible to land near the crash site, which meant that the only paths were a hike along a steep mountainous path or a rope descent from the air.

I'm at present asking for other opinions on this. Also I will be checking for more copyright problems. If someone copies, there is a good chance they did it somewhere else....William 23:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

How about replacing that sentence:

Rescuers could not land near the crash due to the rugged area. They had to walk to the crash site on a difficult path or be lowered to the site by rope.

EdJohnston (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 Done with a minor tweak. --Activism1234 00:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Some info[edit]

On the same day as the 2010 IAF Sikorsky CH-53 crash, Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. made a record-breaking flight.[1]. Apparently, that was part of an effort by Sikorsky to sell the idea of its X2 Technology Light Tactical Helicopter to the US army at that time,[2] so the 26 July 2010 date of the Sikorsky record breaking effort probably was know in advance by a variety of people. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, but I don't see the relevance to this crash. --Jethro B 15:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)