477:
Knowledge's scope or sense of historical significance. Coverage from a future report also doesn't count in terms of defeating NOT#NEWS - we simply do not have an article on all the crashes that get reported on - which is a huge number. I would be happy for the
Aviation project to try and propose this, but right now, it is nowhere near to being a match with current practice. And simple article length and quality of sourcing is irrelevent - the nomination is about NOT#NEWS, not style, or the GNG in the sources sense (as opposed to the EVENT sense).
301:
every crash that is ever investigated. The "significant national or international coverage" is infact not significant in the way NOT#NEWS, GNG or even EVENT defines it. It is just what you would routinely expect for a crash of this size, just the standard news wire repetition of local officials statements, so unless you are advocating some kind of automatic inclusion criteria on that basis, I don't see how this assertion supports anything, rather it reinforces the idea this is a NOT#NEWS case.
196:. An article about an aircrash which, upon investigation, seems to only be sourcable to just to the brief burst of news on the day. There seems to be no evidence that it will become a historically notable crash or significant event, and nothing that is currently known about it supports such a conclusion. As ever, I've no objection to recreation if notability can be proved with some later events.
300:
is clear - do not create crash articles where the only significant consequential impact is on a single airline/airport. As for the crash investigation, such investigations are routine - the 'guaranteed coverage' is, for the purposes of N, completely irrelevant, seeing as we do not write articles on
459:
No, WP is not a crystal ball. But this is already longer and better sourced, from reliable sources, than many articles that appear on the front page as a "did you know...?". My observation was that it may seem a little short on the detail for such a significant accident but that's not unusual, and
476:
No, coverage from CNN or Xinhua does not give automatic notability - these are routine, and pretty brief, international wire reprints, and in depth coverage from Russia also does not defeat NOT#NEWS. The air industry sources are irrelevent - they cover anything and everything, well outside
444:
This rationale doesn't make sense to me. We do not keep articles on predictions of future news coverage, which appeared to die out nearly a month ago, and an investigation, impending or otherwise, does not confer automatic notability on
Wikipeda, as explained at length in reply to C628.
335:
Yes....and I thought I had already explained how this point doesn't take account of current practice, common sense, or the actual detailed wording in all the policies, guidelines and essays, which go into great detail about these things. You need to refine it, not simply restate it.
295:
That sounds like a matter for the airline article, rather than a justification for keeping a separate crash article. Not to mention that without a conclusion, there is no evidence that this will be of lasting significance to the airline. Even the
Aviation project's own
271:
with sources, guaranteed additional coverage in the future because investigation has begun, the crash also led to an investigation of the airline itself, meaning it passes the "...precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance..." clause of
290:
The GNG is a presumption, and so is EVENT. They do not over-ride NOT#NEWS, nor are they automatic passes if content does not warrant separate articles. And what the source actually says about the investigation of the airline is,
162:
460:
will improve as investigations are done. And with significant coverage not just from Russia media or air industry sources but from the likes of CNN and Xinhua it already easily meets general notability guidelines.--
404:
428:. It's recent news now but it's just the sort of news with notability that outlasts the news cycle, and should grow considerably as details emerge and investigations are done.--
156:
117:
378:
226:
invalidates your arguement about it becoming historically notable. Maybe you should try to start a centralised discussion about the WP notability guidelines?
90:
85:
122:
94:
77:
321:
And my point is that this is not a NOTNEWS case, as there have been repercussions because of the crash, which leads to enduring notability.
467:
435:
177:
144:
17:
138:
486:
471:
454:
439:
419:
393:
368:
345:
330:
310:
285:
253:
239:
205:
59:
81:
134:
507:
36:
506:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
184:
364:
73:
65:
482:
450:
341:
306:
249:
201:
462:
430:
170:
150:
297:
293:"a special commission had been set up to investigate how Katekavia was organizing its flights".
415:
389:
360:
235:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
478:
446:
337:
302:
273:
245:
223:
197:
326:
281:
55:
264:
215:
193:
276:, not to mention the "significant national or international coverage" of the crash.
411:
385:
228:
219:
244:
The GNG is a presumption. It does not over-ride NOT#NEWS, and neither does NTEMP.
111:
268:
322:
277:
50:
218:(significant coverage, independent of the subject, etc) with the
500:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
107:
103:
99:
169:
405:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
510:). No further edits should be made to this page.
183:
8:
379:list of Russia-related deletion discussions
224:Knowledge:NTEMP#Notability_is_not_temporary
399:
373:
403:: This debate has been included in the
377:: This debate has been included in the
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
60:00:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
487:21:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
472:18:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
455:17:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
440:13:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
420:00:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
394:00:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
369:16:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
346:15:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
331:15:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
311:14:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
286:13:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
254:14:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
240:13:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
206:13:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
527:
298:aircrash notability essay
503:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
74:Katekavia Flight 9357
66:Katekavia Flight 9357
44:The result was
465:
433:
422:
408:
396:
382:
518:
505:
461:
429:
409:
383:
231:
220:sources provided
188:
187:
173:
125:
115:
97:
34:
526:
525:
521:
520:
519:
517:
516:
515:
514:
508:deletion review
501:
470:
438:
229:
130:
121:
88:
72:
69:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
524:
522:
513:
512:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
466:
463:JohnBlackburne
434:
431:JohnBlackburne
423:
397:
371:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
316:
315:
314:
313:
258:
257:
256:
214:Article meets
191:
190:
127:
123:AfD statistics
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
523:
511:
509:
504:
498:
497:
488:
484:
480:
475:
474:
473:
469:
464:
458:
457:
456:
452:
448:
443:
442:
441:
437:
432:
427:
424:
421:
417:
413:
406:
402:
398:
395:
391:
387:
380:
376:
372:
370:
366:
362:
358:
355:
354:
347:
343:
339:
334:
333:
332:
328:
324:
320:
319:
318:
317:
312:
308:
304:
299:
294:
289:
288:
287:
283:
279:
275:
270:
266:
262:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
242:
241:
237:
233:
232:
225:
221:
217:
213:
210:
209:
208:
207:
203:
199:
195:
186:
182:
179:
176:
172:
168:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
136:
133:
132:Find sources:
128:
124:
119:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
57:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
502:
499:
425:
400:
374:
361:Wikireader41
356:
292:
260:
227:
211:
192:
180:
174:
166:
159:
153:
147:
141:
131:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
194:WP:NOT#NEWS
157:free images
479:MickMacNee
447:MickMacNee
359:per C628--
338:MickMacNee
303:MickMacNee
246:MickMacNee
198:MickMacNee
412:• Gene93k
386:• Gene93k
274:WP:EVENT
118:View log
263:Passes
230:Lugnuts
163:WP refs
151:scholar
91:protect
86:history
265:WP:GNG
216:WP:GNG
135:Google
95:delete
468:deeds
436:deeds
178:JSTOR
139:books
112:views
104:watch
100:links
48:. --
16:<
483:talk
451:talk
426:Keep
416:talk
401:Note
390:talk
375:Note
365:talk
357:Keep
342:talk
327:talk
323:C628
307:talk
282:talk
278:C628
269:WP:N
261:Keep
250:talk
236:talk
212:Keep
202:talk
171:FENS
145:news
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
56:talk
51:Cirt
46:keep
410:--
384:--
185:TWL
120:•
116:– (
485:)
453:)
418:)
407:.
392:)
381:.
367:)
344:)
329:)
309:)
284:)
252:)
238:)
222:.
204:)
165:)
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
58:)
481:(
449:(
414:(
388:(
363:(
340:(
325:(
305:(
280:(
267:/
248:(
234:(
200:(
189:)
181:·
175:·
167:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
142:·
137:(
129:(
126:)
114:)
76:(
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.