Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Conviasa Boeing 737 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 no consensus. (X! · talk) · @034 · 23:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Conviasa Boeing 737 crash

Not notable, fails

WP:NOTNEWS. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 00:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep-It was a crash, and although most plane crashes will never be on this site, this one involved a commercial airliner.

talk) 01:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Unfortunately, the NOM is right - it fails
WP:AIRCRASH. Just being a commercial aircraft doesn't qualify it. Note, here, that it also wrecked while deadheading - the article doesn't explain what happened insofar as cause or aftermath effect, only that the crew of 3 died in the wreck. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
- Comment - In addition, this is probably the weirdest and most extended-out
  WP:COATRACK I've seen. The article explains that this bird with this tail number wrecked into some South American volcano, and then describes the history of the particular bird, as if it were a history for the plane. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
- Change !vote to keep. Somebody rewrite the article? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I just looked through the history of the article and didn't see anything about a bird in any of the recent revisions. Can you check them to let me know what you're talking about? 174.146.255.7 (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - By bird, I mean this. It's slang. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Illiniza, as it certainly is a notable event for the volcano. 70.29.208.69 (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets
WP:AIRCRASH; "It is an accident which involves a scheduled or charter air carrier" which Conviasa certainly counts as. The guideline does not - and as I recall, deliberatly so - state that the airline must be performing a scheduled or charter flight at the time of said accident. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
- Problem I have here is that 1) from what I can tell, the intent doesn't mean that every wreck - deadhead or otherwise, pilot error or otherwise - should be included, and 2) it doesn't fall into the general rules at all. Other than that the bird wrecked, there are really no unusual circumstances documented about this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The general rules are additional criterea that can be applied to all modes, they don't need met. Only one of any criterea listed there needs met to meet that guideline (or essay or project guideline, or whatever these things are presently called). "An occurence that results in serious injury or loss of life is an accident by definition"; see also the definitions at
    WP:NOTPAPER therefore applies. Including two-three more per year is relevant enyclopedic information without risk of turning us into a directory. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - Given your explanation, I think I can defer to that. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Newsworthy but
WP:AIRCRASH intended to include events like this. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I helped develop it, and I think we did. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Niteshift36. WP:AIRCRASH should not be read too literally, and non-passenger flight accidents of planes owned by carriers should not be automatically notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - despite what is claimed in the nom, this accident does meet
WP:AIRCRASH. Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - fails
WP:AIRCRASH - the only criteria it meets is "It is an accident which involves a scheduled or charter air carrier." which considering the rest of the criteria seems unduly weak. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I helped develop WP:AIRCRASH. It meets both the intended spirit of the original authors and the letter. Given the definition of 'accident' I would hardly consider that to be 'weak'. Since when is "I don't like the way this essay is written" a valid reson to say it violates said essay? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you've pointed out (at least) twice that you helped write it. Great. Then I'll change what I said. I'll say that I feel your criteria is wrong and is too broad if it includes an event like this. Then point out that it is an essay and not a policy so, while helpful, it does not have to be followed, therefore can't really be "violated". Better? Niteshift36 (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Obviously, I disagree but you now have a good argument to support your point of view - one that stands a much better chance of getting the article deleted! And, yes, I was getting fed up repeating myself to people who felt what it said wasn't what it really said, if you get what I said... ;) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

WP:NOT#NEWS, and if the article can't pass under anything other than an opinion that all fatal accidents should have their own page, it should be deleted. Mandsford (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - Reply for Mansford: When a fatal airliner accident occurs, a country's aircraft accident investigation authority (sometimes the same as the civil aviation authority) will investigate it and determine why it happened, and come up with measures to prevent it. Because of the inherent processes from civil aviation authorities and accident investigation authorities to come up with measures to prevent future occurrences, all fatal aircraft accidents are notable. This is why the WP:AIRCRASH essay is used by the project. Check the Venezuelan aviation authority's pages to see any announcements about this incident. Also, check Spanish language newspapers, who documented this incident. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are several of us who believe that

WP:AIRCRASH sets the bar too low. We are discussing a revised version on the talk page, and would value your input. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I suppose I could see in what ways WP:AIRCRASH could be changed. IMO it sets the bar right in terms of fatal accidents. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep commercial airliner on an international flight crashes into volcano, no doubt will have much coverage and investigative reports from both countries and the country of manufacture as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2009 (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.