Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swiftair Flight 5960

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swiftair Flight 5960

edit

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

Swiftair Flight 5960 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most ...accidents...), whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Article passes the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for events. A simple Google search turns up several articles that contain coverage of the crash months after it happened. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] I would recommend the nominator review what to do before an AfD as they have continued to use the (nearly) exact same rationale for almost every AfD they've started. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 18:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't yet assessed this article myself, but I'll vote in a separate comment once I have. Just wanted to say that XYZ has nominated many articles for deletion, of which the majority have been deleted. I believe they would already be familiar with WP:BEFORE. 11WB (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While yes, many of their AfDs have been successful, its mostly because the nominated articles are about recent news events that have limited/contemporary sourcing and a consensus formed to delete. I bring up WP:BEFORE as the nominator doesn't show proof that they have followed the steps outlined in it; they just use the same rationale without any indication that they looked anything beyond the article being a "routine news event." I want them to prove that the articles they are nominated are actually not notable rather than point towards the same criteria over and over again. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 20:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that's appropriate at AfD per WP:READFIRST. We're encouraged to comment on the content not the editors participating. I have mistakenly breached this guideline a few times myself! XYZ has given their reason for the nomination, we've now got to assess the article ourselves and vote! according to our own reasons! 11WB (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets the notability criteria, wide coverage (the article itself has nearly 30 sources); a major aviation incident in the Baltics and I think the first ever full hull loss of a civilian aircraft of such size in Lithuania: [9]. Not a routine kind of news. --Mindaur (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vilnius Airport. This is a random part of the airport's history that in no way warrants a separate article. There are no secondary sources to demonstrate notability or that this is anything more than a news story. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:51, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – nonsense DR. Hull and Human loss makes this clearly pass the notability guideline. See WP:Aircrash --Denniss (talk) 05:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AIRCRASH, an essay, also states: Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep We've had a run of bad air crash articles of late, but this one has the usual apparatus and extended coverage of a scheduled flight incident resulting in serious loss. Mangoe (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Massive Speedy Keep There is so much sustain coverage of this accident. It doesn't matter how many dies, and this was a cargo Boeing 737 which crashed in Lithuania, a country with very few plane crashes. This is not run of the mill crash. Zaptain United (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep meet notability and coverage is sustained. Please review WP:BEFORE per RandomInfinity17's recommendation. 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 15:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. Although we certainly have continued coverage, none of these actually provide analytical coverage of the accident. They're simply regurgitating what investigations have said (e.g. "Prosecutors issued a press release Wednesday, saying, '[...]'"; The Ministry of Justice clarified that [...] - The report indicates that [...]; "'[...]' the Prosecutor General’s Office said in a statement on Wednesday." Speedy keep votes fail to explain what part of WP:SKCRIT is failed (which is to say, none). The type of aircraft involved, the country involved, or the number of fatalities do not correlate to notability. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents (e.g. cargo plane crashes) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree there is no basis for a speedy keep. Also agree that the ___location and other specifics are not relevant to establishing notability. In regards to EVENTCRIT#4, I feel a large percentage of the aviation accident and incident articles that are on the project could be flagged under that currently. I feel that, whilst it is an advice page only, WP:AIRCRASH is more applicable here. Specifically, 'Accidents or incidents should only be included in aircraft articles if: The accident was fatal to humans; or The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport; or The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry. This accident meets the first and second criteria, which is why I opted for keeping the article, along with the other reasoning I gave below! 11WB (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @11wallisb: As I've said above, WP:AIRCRASH, an essay, states that: This essay includes generally accepted criteria for when to add mention of aircraft accidents to articles about airports, airlines and aircraft type articles. Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware of that. It doesn't take precedence over any actual notability guidelines. They are specific to aviation accidents however and as I said two of these criteria are met. Along with the accident being generally notable anyway. 11WB (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is definitely an interesting accident. There is extensive coverage, with a 30-page report from the Transport Accident And Incident Investigation Division of the Ministry of Justice (Lithuania) that analyses the accident in substantial detail. I don't think there is enough to warrant a speedy keep and the references are pretty much all contemporary news reports. The accident is notable though, so I think this quantifies a keep, even if it's weak. 11WB (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "...with a 30-page report from the Transport Accident And Incident Investigation Division of the Ministry of Justice (Lithuania) that analyses the accident in substantial detail." But isn't that the point accident investigative agencies, to analyse the accidents that they're investigating? "...and the references are pretty much all contemporary news reports." But that falls afoul of WP:NOTNEWS which states that Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports [as] Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of these accidents, dependant on country, may not even have a report in the end. Or only a short one. Credit should be given to the Lithuanian MoJ for actually conducting a full investigation on a flight that wasn't commercial. 11WB (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aviationwikiflight, a recent example of my point above would be here. 28 fatalities on a scheduled passenger flight but no investigation conducted by the Department of Civil Aviation (Myanmar). Yet for Swiftair 5960, a cargo flight with 1 fatality, we get a 30-page detailed report. 11WB (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't taken year into account here, but considering Myanmar's Civil Authority was formed several decades before the accident, you would think there would be something put out about it, right? 11WB (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's fair to compare a 1970s aviation accident in Myanmar, which at the time was a dictatorship described as an "isolated hermit kingdom and one of the least developed countries in the world", to a 2020s aviation accident that occurred in Lithuania, a developed country which has a functioning democracy. We judge each accident based on its individual merit, not based on whether or not "X accident" got an investigation. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Specific nation's history really isn't something I have any knowledge of. I was looking at this from a very numbers-focused point of view. 11WB (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from the UK, I should add - and a few other exceptions. I have no knowledge of Myanmar or Lithuania's history at all. 11WB (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused. Are you saying that this accident is in part notable because it has a (lengthy) preliminary/interim report? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'm saying that there is more information for a Wikipedia article on a specific accident to use if there is a longer, detailed report - like in 5960's case here. 11WB (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aviationwikiflight, I chose a pretty terrible example to try to make my point. I apologise for that! I realise I'm basically trying to justify comparing apples to oranges, and so my point, whilst not a fully incorrect observation in many cases, really doesn't matter here. 11WB (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is notable for having a Fatality and reliable sources WP:AIRCRASH. Yousuf31 (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Swiftair_Flight_5960&oldid=1307164293"