Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeroflot Flight 112

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 redirect‎ to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1960s as a reasonable ATD. Owen× ☎ 20:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight 112 (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)

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: A search reveals that there exists no (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no (sustained) continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects and no long-term impact on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Turkmenistan. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Recent discussion suggests one of the two sources listed to be generally unreliable. Aviationwikiflight's discussion of the lack of secondary sources, coverage, and impact only reinforce this editor's position. Jtwhetten (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for now. There seems to be 2 glaring problems here: effects and sources. As for effects, it is well known that the USSR covered up many aviation and aerospace disasters, not to mention Aeroflot planes were crashing what seemed to be every week, so it doesn't seem that important. However, the fact that it is the deadliest passenger aviation crash in Turkmenistan seems relevant enough to me to warrant the page staying. As for sources, the crash is listed on aircrashinfo, a popular aggregate source for plane crashes, and they helpfully list all of their sources where they got the crash info. As it turns out, the 2 sources cited in the article do not pop up in this reference list, so information about this crash must be somewhere in aircrashinfo's references. Thankfully, I found a few that cover this time period and are available in my university's library, so if I get the time I'm more than willing to see if I can find any more relevant information from a real source. If I hit a dead end, it's probably better for this to get deleted. But in the meantime, I'm willing to give it a shot. SouthernDude297 (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I seriously doubt the sources listed would provide significant coverage of the event beyond a mere trivial passing mention. Per WP:GNG, sources should be secondary, meaning that the sources must provide analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. If the sources do, I would be inclined to reconsider the nomination, but for now, you seem to be arguing that currently, the event isn't notable. And just because "Flight ___" was the deadliest in x country doesn't mean it should warrant a stand-alone article, unless it can meet the necessary requirements to have a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1960s. Incident is sufficiently covered there. Meltdown627 (talk) 23:39, 21 September 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.