Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 West Java airliner 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 West Java airliner crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable, fails WP:AIRCRASH and not WP:NOTNEWS. Only a minor airliner accident appeared in local news. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 07:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a MINOR accident? This is hardly four or five wiped out in a car crash. Twenty-four people, though I like many others hate the idea of using a body count, makes pretty much any accident notable. WP:AIRCRASH states "Loss of life is not necessarily a valid criterion" and the key word is 'necessarily'. Twenty-four is easily enough. To use a touch of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which I know isn't really valid, 2009 Pakistan Army Mil Mi-17 crash was on WP:ITN when the death toll was being reported at twenty-six; no-one questioned notability that I can see. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think that accident (2009 Pakistan Army Mil Mi-17 crash) was notable because it was a large loss of life from a alleged terrorist action rather than a military training accident. Rcurtis5 (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Large loss of life in an accident is definitely notable. -Marcusmax(speak) 14:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Both of these keep comments make a WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE argument with regard to the amount of people killed which by itself does not make an article notable. Rcurtis5 (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well guess what Essays are not policy (okay that was a joke) but seriously per WP:AIRCRASH fatalities are important in determining if an article is notable, other than this WP:N will take care of the rest using the independant sources I provided.-Marcusmax(speak) 19:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:THISNUMBERISSOHUGETHATITISANUNUSUALCIRCUMSTANCE is an essay, though Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I only saw that after posting, I thought it was a guideline in WP:AVIATION. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - All the information is this stub article should be moved to the list of incidents related to this particular model of airplane (Fokker_27#Notable_accidents). Enough content and sources on this incident do not exist to enable the creation of a separate article and everything is this article can easily be expressed in a bullet on the incidents list. In addition the inclusion of the phrase "airliner crash" is misleading as it suggests this was a commercial flight when in actuality it was a military transport. Rcurtis5 (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I didn't realize the plane crash was already included in the bulleted list in Fokker_27#Notable_accidents because the dates conflicted, I fixed the date in the Fokker 27 article. All the data from the 2009 West Java airliner crash is replicated in Fokker_27#Notable_accidents therefore this article is superfluous and should be deleted Rcurtis5 (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thats fine and such but this is common practice when a major incident involving loss of life happen tipically there is a separate article and then a smaller version of the article is listed at the aircraft or airline page. In this case the article needs an expansion, infobox and better sourcing all of which the WP:AVIATION will likely be able to do. If references are needed then use these [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Issues remain, first off this should be renamed as this was not an airliner as the article suggests. -Marcusmax(speak) 19:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• After reading the essay on notability in WP:AIRCRASH focusing on the section on military aircraft this article is not notable. Every reference included here contains very little information because there was nothing unusual about this accident to make it notable in the media. It is important to remember that a loss of life aboard a military training flight is not particularly unusual especially as one of the articles you mentioned discusses Indonesias relatively poor safety record. In addition all of the references provided will not provide enough information for this article to grow beyond a stub. I agree this incident should be included on the plane model's incidents section (Fokker_27#Notable_accidents) but it is simply not notable and out of the ordinary to have its own article. Rcurtis5 (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - military accidents are not normally notable, summary at Fokker F27 and List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present) is all that is required. MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This accident, although involving a military aircraft, is sufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - In addition to the 7 sources above I will add a few more in; [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] There is easily enough here for a DYK and we should look to expand this as a whole. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources added to this article which easily demonstrate passing WP:NOTABILITY. And an accident involving a national air force that includes 24 fatalities is not "minor."--Oakshade (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Rcurtis5. This seems to be the most logical way to handle the situation. Tavix |  Talk  23:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Given the death toll and the news coverage, this is clearly a notable air crash. 174.146.255.7 (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep simply on the basis that Indonesian air safety issues are significant and notable in themselves - with loss of life or non commercial flights - even more so - there may be general notability issues for the wider wikipedia - in the Indonesian context it is better an article than being subsumed into a non country specific list SatuSuro 11:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds like perfect reasoning to merge this to an article about Indonesian air safety issues. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would have thought the opposite - there is no such article - each crash is treated separately as an article as the issue of Indonesian air safety has a wide range of factors (it would not be easy to synthesise the range of contributing factos) - the current category hardly touches the full range of actual air crashes in Indonesia over the last 50 years - if anyone ever decides to create an accurate list of Indonesian air tragedies - that is another issues again and not relevant to this afd - an article would require very good local knowledge - and as fas as I can see at most afds - there is little or no knowledge about Indonesia and its context SatuSuro 13:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You know, if 24 people were killed in an airplane crash in Indiana, there would be no question about keeping the article. But if it happens in Indonesia, on the other side of the world, it's "minor", right? Bad news, there were 24 people killed. But the good news... it wasn't anybody you know. Mandsford (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no-brainer, and Mandsford's observations are insightful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:07, 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.