Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Parcel Service Flight 6

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The result was As nominator, withdrawn AFD in favour of redirect and parallel AFD. Strange Passerby (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United Parcel Service Flight 6

United Parcel Service Flight 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics

)

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

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of News-related deletion discussions. —Strange Passerby (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Strange Passerby (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The fatal crash of a Boeing 747 freighter is likely to lead to changes in the operation of 747 aircraft in general, including passenger aircraft, and possibly to aircraft operations in general in the United Arab Emirates. The article has adequate references Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what you're saying is that even though there's
    none of that has happened yet, and even though that would belong in articles about 747s and aircraft operations in the UAE, this article should be kept? Uncle G (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Weak keep, but rewrite - Seems like an important subject, but needs to be rewritten. If deleted, delete per
  Jeremjay24 14:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Like UPS Airlines Flight 6 is written? Uncle G (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP is not news and can not report on every event, not matter how shocking or sad. If this event leads to changes in 747 operations or UAE operations then it should be reported in an article on the changes, when they have happened.Borock (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- not all accidents, no matter how tragic to those involved and those close to them, are notable. Agree that if industry-wide changes are made, then that would be a topic for another article, which might mention this accident if a sufficient and well-sourced causal connection is shown. N2e (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a bigger deal then some are giving it credit for, the
  WP:EVENT. -Marcusmax(speak) 19:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Redirect to
  WP:AVIMOS, is better developed, and was created first. The accident itself is notable enough to sustain an article. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy redirect to
  WP:CSD#A10 as duplicate information which does not discuss the topic in as much depth. This is purely a procedural recommendation; judgment on the validity of the target article is withheld. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy redirect to
  United Parcel Service Flight 6. Q43 (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Link changed. Mjroots (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2010 (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.