Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Jubba Airways crash

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 keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Jubba Airways crash

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The articles does not meet the criteria for WP:AIRCRASH. It also does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Africa, and Somalia. Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet PERSISTENCE. Not a significant event, no ongoing coverage after the event occurred. Coverage is not in-depth. ProofRobust 18:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - longstanding consensus in the WP:AVIATION community is that hull loss accidents with serious injuries involving large commercial airliners are typically considered notable, lack of English-language sources from Somalia notwithstanding. (The cited sources don't state that this is a hull loss, but considering that it's an older airliner and it reportedly rolled over, it's a reasonable assumption.) WP:AIRCRASH is misapplied here; it applies to the inclusion of crashes in articles about airports, airlines and aircraft types, not to the notability of standalone articles. :Carguychris (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – as Carguychris said, within WP:AVIATION the loss of a major airliner with casualties is routinely covered with a dedicated article. Plus: have you guys watched the videos in the referenced sources? Aircraft flipped over and huge fireball that miraculously leaves the fuselage unscathed. Had the same accident happened in the US, it would have been front page news for days. That it happened in a developing country with a poor aviation safety record and minimal coverage in English sources does not change the nature of the event. --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is based on coverage. not the event. Hence, the videos are irrelevant. If the article does not have enough sources to meet WP:GNG, it should be deleted. I have failed to find such sources. Can you please link to the sources you have found? ProofRobust 21:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1], BBC already included in the article.
[2], FlightGlobal, major aviation publication.
[3], The Aviation Herald, accident news website widely used as RS here.
[4], a mention on Stars and Stripes.

all covering the event with dedicated articles. That's well past WP:GNG. 'Significant coverage' does not mean 'extensive coverage'. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources look like secondary sources to me. ProofRobust 10:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? The only primary sources for this event would be e.g a press release from the airline, the airport, or the aircraft's manufacturer involved, or possibly a statement from the local authorities. All of the above sources are secondary. --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any analysis, evaluation, or interpretation as per WP:SECONDARY. ProofRobust 14:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, scheduled passenger flight crashes at an airport and burns up meets longstanding notability standards on Wikipedia. The fact that it happened in a country where local news sources are not in English or online makes it more difficult to research an article, but does not change the underlying notability. The fact that the passengers were successfully evacuated without death does not make it non-notable. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2022 (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.