Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VASP Flight 780

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
VASP Flight 780 (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)

While tragic, there is no indication that this airplane crash meets WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT; if there was significant, long-lasting coverage, I can't find any sources to prove it. And I have no reason to believe there is likely to be long-lasting coverage: three deaths, crashed into the forest, and the crash was caused by pilot error.

Current three sources/links, used here and on the deWiki article, are unusable for notability/unusable.[1] is a user-generated wiki, [2] is a government report on the crash (they're required to make these for every single incident), [3] is a YouTube video of a cockpit recording. My WP:BEFORE revealed two YouTube videos:[4] [5], both unusable.

I have no prejudice against selectively merging/redirecting, should a suitable target be found. Given the limited ramifications of the initial crash, even if the topic can be shown notable a stand-alone page would likely not be warranted GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: it received reasonable coverage in Portuguese-language sources, as per pt:Voo VASP Cargo 780#Referências (note: there was no interlanguage link before). fgnievinski (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link! I'll have a look through them. The ptWiki does appear to be of better quality than the enWiki and deWiki articles.
  • [6] is user generated
  • [7] does not mention the plane crash or the plane itself
  • [8] is the same crash report (and cited four times)
  • [9] is the Aviationbase wiki again
Then there's four 1992 news reports, all dated to within a day of the accident. The ptWiki links are broken, but the headlines appear to be the fairly routine "a plane crash happened, people died" type story that, while useful, was something I knew was likely to exist and doesn't change my arguments about WP:NEVENT, lasting coverage, WP:GNG, and WP:PAGEDECIDE.
The information about a social media user visiting the plane crash is new to me, however. For reference, here are the links:
  • [10] (no author credited)
  • [11] (no author credited)
Both of these article, to me, mostly seem to focus on the influencer's trip to the site of the planecrash. They each spare a paragraph or two to sum up the crash itself, but it's mostly spent discussing the influencer. I'm also not an expert in Brazilian newspapers, especially very local ones, but I'm having a hard time finding information about either news source. juruaonline.com.br does not have an "about me" type page- all attempts to get one redirect you to their "advertise with us"/"submit a story" type pages. juruaemtempo.com.br does actually give you some information about its reporters, but none of them were apparently willing to attach their name to this piece. So far, they are still the only examples of any WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE we have for this crash. And while these two sources are not enough to prove notability to me (I really don't think this article says anything that isn't already covered in List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737#1990s), they might be enough for somebody else to decide this is notable. So, thank you again for finding them @Fgnievinski! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also did a quick search for sources and can't find any online newspaper articles about the event. [12] fgnievinski (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]