From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. After muddling this through with a couple of other admins I have to the decision to close this as no consensus.

A significant number of keep votes quote WP:AIRCRASH which in itself cannot be used as a rationale to keep an article, just the material regarding the crash. I also see a significant number of WP:ILIKEIT votes, and some actually providing good reasoning to keep the article. Like wise I see some solid reasons to delete it. Some say it doesn't pass WP:GNG while others say it does. Assessing what GNG is, a subject is notable if there is significant coverage from secondary, independent, reliable sources. Unfortunately most of the article cites flight tracking data with some news articles so the interpretation as to whether it passes or not is in the air s Since only 2 users only bothered to back up the GNG argument with sources of their own, the interpretation as to whether it passes or not is still in the air.

Since a significant number of users quote AIRCRASH, they are not arguing to keep the subject as a standalone article despite the keep votes. I was seriously considering closing this as merge into Aviation accidents and incidents, per WP:AIRCRASH, but the question of whether or not this article should be a standalone or not hasn't really been answered in this AfD.

I seriously recommend starting a merge discussion into Aviation accidents and incidents and see what the outcome for that is. — CYBERPOWER ( Chat) 16:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Pegasus Airlines Flight 8622

Pegasus Airlines Flight 8622 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable incident. Runway overruns are very common. WP:NOTNEWS applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Right now is it to soon to tell if this should be deleted until more information on the accident comes to light. If the aircraft has be written off with any injuries which as yet not been updated but only by a few sources because the accident only happened within the first few hours. I understand the reason for the deletion under WP:NOTNEWS. Since 2017 was the safest for Commercial aviation history making accidents like this even more rare & we could see later if their is any probable cause which leads to any safety recommendations involving the airline or airport. I like to ask why Peruvian Airlines Flight 112 has also not been Articles for deletion? yet a fatel accident in the 2017 Nature Air Cessna 208 Caravan crash Articles is currently under Articles for deletion? Cloverfield2Y ( talk) 23:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply

*Delete - Awfully foolish to create an article when the information critical to determining notability doesn't exist; in other words, at this point in time the incident is not notable. Wikipedia is not news and the "why does this article exist then?" argument is unconvincing. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 01:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep - Had to come back and change my vote based on ongoing coverage. [1] [2] Apologies for the previous vote but I decide based on the here and now; this "wait and see" habit we have fallen into is dangerous and can be applied to literally any recent event of anyone's choosing no matter how minor or routine. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 13:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- SME speaking. Overrun is not notable, injuries or not. Rhadow ( talk) 02:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I would say too soon to say. When the images which are quite impressive will go around the world, it may grow in interest. Wykx ( talk) 09:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - article now bashed into some sort of shape. An airliner departs the runway, falls down a cliff and is substantially damaged. That there were no deaths does not take away from the notability of the accident, which meets established criteria for a stand-alone article. Mjroots ( talk) 12:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply
The established criteria are the general notability guidelines. If you are referring to AIRCRASH, that has been thoroughly discredited years ago as a result of many AfD discussions and now states merely that an accident may be mentioned in the articles about the airport and the airline and for cases of stand-alone articles, refer to the aforementioned GNG. YSSYguy ( talk) 21:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Yes, over-runs are common. Over-runs down the side of a cliff? No. This easily passes WP:GNG. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Strange und uncommon accident with veering off the runway and going downhill. That and major airframe damage (smells like writeoff) matches inclusion criteria. -- Denniss ( talk) 13:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: the way the plane ended up, on a steep hill with significant damage but remarkably no loss of life, indicates a likely writeoff. Even without the writeoff angle, just the excursion going down the hill is similar to Air India Express Flight 812, although that had loss of life and this did not. -- AEMoreira042281 ( talk) 15:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - In the photos available it looks very likely to be an airliner hull-loss, so significant enough for an article. - Ahunt ( talk) 17:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep falling down a steep embankment shows that the incident is far more serious and damaging than a regular overrun incident. The media coverage is substantial. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – substantial coverage and unusual enough incident. cherkash ( talk) 18:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – As per the keeps above. Big media coverage. Hull-loss. ( Gabinho >:) 18:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)) reply
  • Keep - as a hull loss passes WP:AIRCRASH. More importantly passes WP:GNG, look at the pictures, when is the last time a major aircraft was seen in this situation? Drastic runway overruns in airplanes of this size are quite rare, and the coverage reflects the event's notability. Inter&anthro ( talk) 21:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - One engine detached from wing and lying in the Black Sea? Definitely notable. Fudpukker ( talk) 21:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Major airline incidents are always notable, there's hundreds of these articles on Wikipedia. See WP:AIRCRASH. Zerbey ( talk) 21:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - While by a miracle there was no loss of life, I'm pretty sure this is a hull loss, which is the other bar for notability when it comes to a scheduled airliner crash. AIRCRASH and GNG both satisfied, this isn't a case for deletion. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- This was not an overrun. The plane swerved off to the side before the end of the runway.-- NapoliRoma ( talk) 05:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Not just an overrun. This was a near-catastrophe; it's a miracle nobody was killed. Aftermath itself makes the incident plenty notable. The plane is a hull loss. Any such event is eminently notable... Veryproicelandic ( talk) 06:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Hull loss and significant incident which will be referred to in future 82.16.59.172 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -Not Notable in long term, insignificant aviation incident. Varmapak (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG. Non-notable run of the mill runway excursion, with no infrastructure damage, very limited injuries and probably no hull loss (but that is irrelevant as insurance write-offs do not a hull loss make)! There is NO reason why this minor incident should have a stand-alone accident, but entries in related lists Accidents and incident sections would be welcome!! Why do we keep getting these frivolous attempts to get non-notable accidents stand-alone articles. There is a MOUNTAIN of consensus which can be used to justify deletion or retention!! USE IT BEFORE you write articles and we can all have an easier life!!!!!!!!!!!-- Petebutt ( talk) 08:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The notability consist of the weirdness of the occurrence, even more notable as pilots said the plane "suffered sudden engine surge". 2017 being safest year ever for commercial aviation, lots of people have interest in accompanying incidents, and certainly this one will be investigated so Wikipedia is a natural fit for compiling this information. And also to me WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG doesn't fit here, because this topic has significant coverage in reliable sources and is not acting as a newspapers. See as an example Air France Flight 66. 138.118.196.54 ( talk) 18:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • This is bound to be an unpopular opinion, but if the subject is deemed notable and we should have a WP article about it, we Delete this version of the article anyway per WP:DENY as the creation of a confirmed Sockpuppet (Cloverfield2Y, who posted a comment immediately below the nominating comments) of the highly-notorious (at least within aviation circles) serial sockpuppeteer and banned User Ryan kirkpatrick. An article can then be created by a editor of good standing. I am leaning towards delete anyway; the crash is obviously unusual, but I am not convinced that "unusual=notable". In this day and age the news media cover everything unusual - last night I saw a detailed report on Australian television of a car that ended up embedded in the second storey of a building in California - so the large number of news reports do not confer notability. This whole thing boils down to the notion that unusual is notable. Will this be remembered as a major event of 2018 in the future? Will there be ongoing coverage beyond this week? I doubt it. YSSYguy ( talk) 22:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Keep - I agree with your general notion, but you forget this is not a small car with a passenger or two. 1) There were 162 passengers on this flight, i.e. many people involved in a dangerous situation. 2) This is about aviation security, which will always be of very public interest since a lot of people are scared of flying. Because of that, there's a very heavy focus on zero accidents in scheduled commercial flights. This is achieved through thorough investigation of every incident, and especially one like this where lives could have been lost. Wikipedia is a very good public source on these on-going investigations, and therefore, every aviation accident of a more major character, like this one, should be thoroughly documented at Wikipedia for reference. There are other aviation accidents with no casualties here on Wikipedia, but they all share that they could have been very dangerous. This is one of them. And even if not this situation in particular, any similar situation with cliffs etc. by the end of the runway, does share those characteristics. This is definitely close enough to casualties for notability when it comes to aviation!! Dommedagsprofet ( talk) 23:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • dont planes crash regularly in third world countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:94 ( talk) 05:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Irrelevant comment, Turkey is not a “third world country”. WWGB ( talk) 07:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Clarification The section of WP:DENY cited earlier is an essay, not policy, and not only that, it is misconstrued here. The essay states "If you see information pages about vandals or vandalism that you think have no practical purpose,", so it doesn't come anywhere close to saying we should delete a page to punish the creating editor. It has no practicable application here. Jacona ( talk) 12:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Fair 'nuff; if I had realised when I first saw the article that it was the work of a sockpuppet I would have nominated it for a G5 Speedy deletion - it hadn't been touched by others at that stage. This guy has a long track record with some 200 sockpuppets and punishment is entirely appropriate, otherwise it just encourages him. As I said above, if the subject is deemed notable, delete the article anyway and have an editor of good standing re-create it. YSSYguy ( talk) 06:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not that my vote matters really, but I think this article is insignificant. No reason to keep it around. I agree with what most other delete advocates have already said. Nothing happened really. Take a second to think about it. No injuries, no damage, and no deaths. How is this an accident??? Lord David, Duke of Glencoe ( talk) 02:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: Why would you say "no damage"? The airliner is most likely a total write-off. - Ahunt ( talk) 02:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC) reply
      • fine you are right but it is still insignificant. Lord David, Duke of Glencoe ( talk) 20:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC) reply
      • Comment: The total hull loss of a US$98M airliner is hardly insignificant. - Ahunt ( talk) 13:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply
      • It's not all about money. Lord David, Duke of Glencoe ( talk) 19:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply
      • Comment: We I guess you must be very wealthy , or at least not a shareholder in the the airline that had the accident, if you consider losing an asset worth US$98M in a few seconds to be not significant. - Ahunt ( talk) 13:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply
        • It's significant for the airline company. Not for the general wikipedia reader. T v x1 15:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply
          • Ahunt, please refrain from assuming my wealth please. Although I may have grew up in a wealthy community, don't assume please. Lord David, Duke of Glencoe ( talk) 19:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply
          • Comment: You are trying to make the case here that a US$98 hull loss is "insignificant", as you put it. I am suggesting you must have a unique point of view that is different from other editors and trying to give you the opportunity to explain yourself and make a case here. So far you are not making a very convincing argument. - Ahunt ( talk) 20:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Wouldn't be surprised if this accident was cited in the creation of a new aviation regulation, maybe now or after a similar accident in the future. Part of a pattern of runway overruns.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 18:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The fact the runway overrun was caused by an engine power surge potentially means there is an issue with the engine model in question, so this might be worth keeping around. -- Kirbanzo ( talk) 19:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply
A pilot claiming there was an engine surge does not make it so, I have been told all sorts of things by pilots over the years to try to deflect that they have fucked up, but lets assume he is correct. Potentially means there is an issue, so this might be worth keeping around? Is this how far we have lowered the bar now? YSSYguy ( talk) 21:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Likely hull-loss, which makes it meet the WP:AIRCRASH guideline. Acebulf ( talk) 03:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. WP:MILL transportation incident, got extensive reporting likely because of the dramatic imagery, but still a case of WP:NOTNEWS. Expensive things break all the time. Sandstein 21:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply
I concur. Lord David, Duke of Glencoe ( talk) 21:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Despairing reversal of non-admin closure in the face of a blizzard of keep votes. WWGB ( talk) 11:28, 21 January 2018 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pegasus_Airlines_Flight_8622&oldid=1138217398"