Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merpati Nusantara Airlines Flight 6517

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 delete. clear consensus after relisting, and according to our usual practice for articles of this type DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merpati Nusantara Airlines Flight 6517

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

Fails WP:Aircrsh and notability guidelines - just another undershoot with no fatalities and no notable effects Petebutt (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Serious damage was done to the plane and thus meets WP:AIRCRASH. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 00:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per YSSYguy. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 17:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Merpati Nusantara Airlines article. The Aircrash essay does not mandate a stand-alone article for every airline crash but states the WP:GNG must also be met; there has been no significant coverage, just news reports of the "it happened" variety. The accident hasn't enough impact for this to be documented on WP other than having a paragraph in the airline article. YSSYguy (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because the WP:EVENT guideline is not met. There has been no continuous coverage; all references of this article are news items published on 10 June, the day of the accident.--FoxyOrange (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No fatalities. No apparent ongoing coverage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The aircraft was written off. Complaints of no ongoing coverage are invalid as the accident only happened in the last week and it takes time for investigations to be carried out, reports written and published. Coverage is not just local to Indonesia, but worldwide. Mjroots (talk) 10:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you seriously saying want to keep the article because it might possibly maybe one day prove to be notable? My grandma's toenail might possibly one day turn out to be maybe notable, but I won't be creating a Wikipedia article about it just yet. 86.5.176.168 (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what I'm saying. IMHO, the accident is notable already. The "lack of ongoing coverage" argument is, IMHO, invalid because of the fact that there will be a report released into the accident in due course. Hopefully it wont take as long as the Crossair Flight 850 accident (over 8 years) before the report is published. Mjroots (talk) 09:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the accident report cannot confer notablility. Consensus has developed over time on WP that not all accidents are notable, but all accidents are investigated and thus all accidents result in an accident report. YSSYguy (talk) 09:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YSSY, I take it you've seen the photographs of the accident aircraft? That there were no fatalities given the amount of damage add weight to the case for notability here. Mjroots (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we take it then that you have abandoned your "It's notable because there will be a report one day" argument in favour of an "it's notable because nobody died" argument? Is there any reason this crash warrants more than a paragraph in the article about the airline? Take away the lead from the article and what remains is a sentence about the aircraft and its age; and a paragraph about the accident itself. What more can be said about it? If there is significant coverage in the future, undo the redirect and expand the article. YSSYguy (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Serious damage was done to the airplane, and some people were injured. The airplane will not be used again. One Of Seven Billion (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll start writing an article on every single plane shot down in World War II immediately. Most of them were never used again either and sometimes crew members were even killed. Oh sorry, is that somehow different? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Serious enough for the aircraft to be written off. Easily passes WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The incident has received sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG. One reason is that this particular airframe has had multiple mishaps and its safety has been called into question, which adds notability to the crash. See this article, for example. Andrew³²⁷ 15:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't an article, that's a readers' forum allowing readers of the Jakarta Post to discuss an earlier news report. It of itself doesn't qualify as a suitable source and I have removed its two uses from the article. It certainly does not add any weight to the "it passes the GNG" argument. As there is no ongoing significant coverage, it does not pass the GNG. There was a flurry of news reports the day after the crash, that's all. There's a story in my local newspaper today - a capital city daily - about a bus crash in South America; the story is two paragraphs. Media outlets worldwide report accidents of all types on a daily basis because they have space to fill, then they move on to the next story. YSSYguy (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect. Nothing notable about this at this stage. — Lfdder (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Xian MA60#Accidents and incidents. The accident passes muster sufficiently to be mentioned in the type, airline and/or aircraft articles, but does not rise to the standard of needing its own, standalone article. WP:TOOSOON but not the sort of major accident that generates WP:PERSISTENCE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, wait and see if there's any more coverage, maybe after there has been an investigation. Peter James (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable about this incident. Let me point out to those who think a hull loss equals an article. It doesn't. There are 40 WP articles on DC-9 incidents and almost 100 hull losses for that type of aircraft according to ASN....William 22:20, 25 June 2013 (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.