- 2010 Tarco Air Antonov An-24 crash (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I'm requesting that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Tarco Air Antonov An-24 crash be relisted. On the surface, four keeps and one delete might seem like a straightforward keep, however looking at discussion and the strength of the arguments, in my opinion, I don't think a keep closure was warranted. The keep arguments mostly felt weak, with some only commenting "per X" or "meets WP:GNG" with the location of the accident (Sudan) being used as an excuse to exempt the event from notability guidelines, and mostly relied on non-P&G arguments to justify keeping the article. The sole delete basically refuted most of these arguments. The discussion could've benefited from a relist to allow further discussion on whether the sourcing was adequate, and whether or not WP:GNG and WP:N(E) were met. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the close of Keep after one relist as a valid exercise of judgment by the closer. A second Relist would have also been a valid exercise of judgment, but we, the reviewers at DRV are not each closing the discussion, but are assessing whether the closer's judgment was valid. One of the Keep !voters did cite policies and guidelines. The appellant disagrees with that interpretation of policies and guidelines, but the closer agreed. The appellant is not so much asking for AFD Round 2 as asking each deletion reviewer to perform their own close. We are not each closing the discussion, but are reviewing the close, which was a valid exercise of judgment. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. While I wouldn't go as far as calling this a BADNAC, I do note that one of the Keeps has already been indef blocked at the time of closing, and the weight of the "meets WP:GNG for me" !vote is questionnable. And while WP:BIAS encourages us to reduce the amount of SIGCOV we require, I don't believe it allows us to reduce it to zero. This leaves us with two solid, P&G-based Deletes, and two or three Keeps of arguable strength. Not quite the uncontroversial situation we normally associate with a NAC, but also not to the point of an overturn. Owen× ☎ 19:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse While it might be plausible to close as "no consensus," it is well within a closer's discretion to close as keep. SportingFlyer describes the sourcing in the article and other editors agreed specifically with the analysis. "Meets WP:GNG" is sufficient in a deletion discussion, especially after other editors have commented extensively on the sourcing. The only pause is that the last comment was to delete the article, with the comment pointing broadly to NEVENT and suggesting there is no secondary sources. That said, our community commonly treats news articles as secondary sources, not primary sources, so I don't think that comment carries much weight under our policies and guidelines.--Enos733 (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak endorse. There was no prospect of consensus to delete. The sole delete was a rebuttal, not a refutation. Sources should be secondary sources, that’s soft, and before noting “exceptions may apply”. Aircraft destroyed, with deaths, that should be covered. The AfD did not address why it couldn’t be merged anywhere. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- What policy or guideline based argument do you have for arguing something "should" be kept when it passes none of the notability guidelines? GNG requires secondary sources, and NEVENT is not met here. That something has fatalities does not make it notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N and the WP:GNG are only WP:Guidelines. They are predictors of what usually happens at AfD. AfD is a process for finding community consensus and it is not bound by the notability guidelines.
- Your question about my use of should appears to be your misreading. Normally not passing notability guidelines means deletions, but not always.
- This crash is notable. Sources were secondary, even if they weren’t ongoing. The question of whether source coverage is ongoing is important, but in this case, the end of the investigation was conclusive.
- It is well enough sourced. The AfD failed to demonstrate WP:BEFORE. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- This would imply that recent global consensuses on guidelines do not need to be observed if "in practice" they are sometimes ignored by a small number of !voters at AfD. This goes against LOCALCON.
WP:N et al are not only predictors of AfD outcomes; they also reflect the standards used for AfC, NPP, and redirection. Deletion policy also explicitly cites failure to meet notability guidelines as a reason for deletion, and WP:AFD says AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies , so I don't see how they aren't "bound" by the guidelines. JoelleJay (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- LOCALCON is not applicable to AfD. If you don’t like an AfD “delete” you can seek recreation via AfC. If you don’t like an AfD “keep”, see WP:RENOM.
- The article has sources, and some secondary source content, and it was a commercial passenger plane, and it crashed, killed people’s and was written off. That sounds like something that gets covered. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- That something killed people is not enough. There are bombings that have killed dozens of people that don't pass NEVENT because they happened in places that have so many acts of terrorism their news cannot cover each individual incident. If it doesn't have sufficient sourcing we do not cover it as its own article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD, is, as JoelleJay says, about whether an articles meets our notability guidelines and other policies, so of course it is bound by those rules. If we're going to ignore all rules and just keep it because we feel like it, why bother with AfD at all? Why not keep everything? What makes this article worth keeping? Nothing, it passes none of our guidelines.
- No, it's not secondary. Only some kinds of news reporting are secondary. A secondary source is one that reflects or analyzes - which obviously cannot be done the day of. The idea that we should keep articles on events that made the news for a period of only days is ludicrous. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You are not quite completely correct about secondary sources. A secondary source can be written in the day, depending on what exactly you are using the source for.
- The first reference is a reliable independent secondary source. Although first written on the day, it was updated as late as 2 1/2 years later with the results of the crash report. Your “delete” !vote was not as strong as you think.
- Did you consider and dismiss all “merge” possibilities? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's for the event in question, no. If it's referring to some other subject discussed in the article on the event, sure.
- Even if that was the case the brief update is not significant coverage compared to the original primary source and is only one source.
- I don't mind if it's merged but no target seemed obvious or compelling. AfD is first and foremost for notability questions. This does not pass GNG or NEVENt. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- That’s a “Weak endorse” vs “no consensus” or “relist”, which at the time of close were alternatives. However, “delete” was not a possible close. I have sympathy for User:PARAKANYAA coming in late with a detailed !vote that was effectively ignored. I oppose “relist” despite that because it is a very old, completely inoffensive article and so there is no reason to rush. A few months for people to have a few breaths before coming back fresh is always better in cases like this. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, noting that I would have also endorsed a close of “no consensus.” There was clearly not consensus to delete and nothing indicated that consensus to delete could form if the discussion was relisted for another week. SportingFlyer asserts the coverage in the article meets GNG, and this claim is not successfully refuted despite Aviationwikiflight grasping at straws in an attempt to discredit these sources. The other delete vote falsely claimed the sources were primary, so that vote was correctly given less weight by the closer. Frank Anchor 03:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse and really--bringing a close against your own nomination here where your argumentation fails to persuade essentially everyone is poor form. I don't even see 'no consensus' as a reasonable close, given the preponderance of keep opinion and strength of argumentation. Jclemens (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy endorse. Could not possibly have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. There were two valid delete !votes and 3 valid keep !votes, with only one of the keeps going into any detail on the sources (and they failed to demonstrate the required sustained coverage). The fact that all identified coverage was in the week that it occurred, 14 years ago, is an absolute rebuttal to any claim the topic meets NEVENT and NOTNEWS and this should have been weighted much more heavily. JoelleJay (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist (as the one delete vote). This obviously does not meet GNG because sourcing is from the day it happened and then it was never mentioned again. News articles can be secondary if they reflect on the original events which they obviously can't be if it's in the same week and they offer 0 analysis. The sourcing was also not in depth. Failing GNG, this does not pass a single aspect of NEVENT, and there was one vote that asserted that primary sources were secondary (they were not) and then two other votes basing theirs off that incorrect argument. Otherwise, literally everything that has ever made the news for two days that killed some people (every mass shooting, every mass stabbing, every industrial accident, every explosion) would be notable. Which is not the consensus. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- (involved) I clearly want this kept and think it's clearly within policy to do so, but I was surprised this was closed by a non-admin, and while I think keep is a valid reading of the discussion I thought this would go no consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 18:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. It might have been better closed as “no consensus”. In retrospect, it probably should have been left open longer to see replies to the last “delete” !vote. The NAC-er should see that their close was not net-helpful, and they should be more careful with contested discussions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
|
