Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeroflot Flight A-53

Aeroflot Flight A-53 (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: There exists no reliable independent (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no (sustained) continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects nor long-term impacts on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:27, 5 October 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) 07:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Invalid nomination. 23 people killed is a notable event in my books. There are at least 3 sources cited which have no dependence on Aeroflot whatsoever. Of course a catastrophe in a Somewherestan aint no global reverberation, but it did make impact and consequences. Keeping in mind it was in 1975 in the Soviet Union, where such kind of information was thoroughly suppressed, it is importnt to keep it in Wikipedia. --Altenmann >talk 20:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Other than the death count, can you find evidence to support the event's notability? Going through the sources listed, Airdisaster.ru is considered unreliable per this discussion; ASN relies on Airdisaster.ru which makes its information most likely unreliable; per this discussion, Russianplanes.net is also considered unreliable which just leaves B3A, however, per WP:GNG, "Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases [...] are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined [...]," which makes all sources listed mostly non-contributory to the event's notability.

  but it did make impact and consequences

  Can you prove that it did have lasting impacts and consequences? I understand that coverage in the USSR was suppressed but a standalone article relies on the existence of significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources, which for the most part has been lacking. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You are kidding me: four independent sources with detailed coverage not enough? Two dozen dead people is no consequence? --Altenmann >talk 16:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They may all be independent but are they reliable? The simple answer is no, per the discussions above. A single database entry, B3A, is not enough to establish notability (additionally, the entry does not contain in-depth analysis of the accident). Obviously what happened is tragic, nobody is denying that, but per WP:LASTING, "events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. [...] Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable." This accident does not demonstrate historical significance, despite the number of casualties. Additionally, as already stated above, the event does not pass the general notability guideline since the event lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, colleague, there is not "A single database entry", but four references with very detailed descriptions, like, here. You are probably looking at a wrong article. --Altenmann >talk 16:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am looking at the correct article.

  To reiterate, per this discussion, the consensus seems to be that Airdisasters.ru is a self-published user-generated website with shady editorial oversight, which, combined with a lack of sources for its information, makes the website unreliable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "this discusison" of two uneducated persons does not impress me as authoritative. --Altenmann >talk 17:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  First of all, no personal attacks against others, and second of all, this is the current consensus, if you disagree, you can always reopen a discussion at the noticeboard to challenge it. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1970s. Accident is sufficiently covered there; not notable enough for its own article. Meltdown627 (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terribly ugly list, with narrow text column unreadable on mobile devices. It is good for summaries, bot not for storing full info. "Sufficiently covered" is a joke essentially meaning "who cares". --Altenmann >talk 16:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Why would a summary of a non-notable event need to contain all information about it? In my opinion, the summary at the linked article contains a sufficient amount of information. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Loaded question: who says it is non-notable? --Altenmann >talk 18:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What I meant to say was, assuming that the article isn't kept, either being deleted or redirected, why would would it need to contain all information about it? As said above, in my opinion, the summary at Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1970s seems to contain the strict necessary. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1970s per Meltdown627. This is a WP:News article without any meaningful coverage to meet notability requirements. There's nothing about fatal accidents that makes them inherently notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. An airline accident killing 23 people is clearly notable. Also passes WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability is not solely inherited because of the casualty count and there's no clear rationale as to why the event passes WP:GNG. For the most part, a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]