Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Abakan Ilyushin Il-76 crash (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) The noms contention that this was a "run of the mill event" is not accepted. Desertarun (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1996 Abakan Ilyushin Il-76 crash

1996 Abakan Ilyushin Il-76 crash (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)

2nd nomination.
No significant lasting effects (demonstrated). Whilst it does have coverage, this is what would be considered a run-of-the-mill event. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The first AfD for this article can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RA-78804. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep although it has no lasting effects, the number of fatalities is significantly larger than its peers in the afd listings around it. The article itself has multiple issues however and needs extensive work to be fixed. The article indefinitely does not fail Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not however due to the large number of fatalities in this incident. Another thing is that it has a larger count than the 2024 Ivanovo Ilyushin Il-76 crash, standing at 16. These two factors combined can be sought to keep this article in particular. Lolzer3000 (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The event does not have many reliable sources that can be used with the verifiability of sources lacking and doesn't exactly meet WP:GNG, fails WP:INDEPTH due to sources not providing much in depth analysis of the accident. One source used in the page [1], states that it is a first hand account of the accident which makes it a primary source. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And stating that an article should be kept because of another article is not an argument. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep An accident with 23 fatalities is definitely not a "common, everyday, ordinary item". Skyshiftertalk 16:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not necessarily a "common everyday ordinary item" but controlled flight into terrain accidents are mostly common. Nothing was inherently unusual about the accident that would make it notable on itself. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Considering the number of fatalities along with the value of the cargo on board this is very an accident that is not “common”. Alex Hoe (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you please specify what the cargo consisted of that would make this accident notable? As tragic as this accident was, this event doesn't have much notability other than the number of deaths. Other than that, there is basically nothing that gives this accident any enduring significance. The accident has not resulted in any lasting effects nor any long-term impacts. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2024 (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.