Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Tarco Air Antonov An-24 crash

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=2010 Tarco Air Antonov An-24 crash}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=2010 Tarco Air Antonov An-24 crash}})

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary in nature since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have significant, in-depth, nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself other than, "After touching down, the plane crashed with X casualties", with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sudan-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Transportation. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep A scheduled passenger flight which ended in fatalities and safety recommendations. The requirement for sourcing here is difficult because this occurred in a very remote part of the world - deleting this would further WP:BIAS. SportingFlyer T·C 18:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• :I'd also note that the article is currently adequately sourced. SportingFlyer T·C 18:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::None of this is based on policies or guidelines. There is no such policy that states that an event is solely notable if it was "A scheduled passenger flight which ended in fatalities and [resulted in] safety recommendations". WP:BIAS does not state that we should ignore notability guidelines simply because it happened in a country where coverage is limited. I've seen better articles than this get deleted and the mere fact that the article is well referenced does not make it all the more notable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::You're applying our rules too strictly. All of the sources in the article are American, but this happened in Sudan and the Sudanese performed the investigation. Furthermore it is fairly obvious that a regularly scheduled passenger plane service which ended in fatalities is likely notable - heck, multiple American sources picked it up even though it occurred in rural Sudan. The only possible reason to delete at this time is that there isn't demonstrated lasting coverage in English-language sources... SportingFlyer T·C 20:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::So? You have yet to actually mention a policy or guideline to support keeping the article. An investigation was performed after a plane crash - That is routine. The news covered the accident without any further coverage - WP:NOTNEWS/WP:EVENTCRIT#4. It's been more than a decade since the plane crashed and there clearly is zero continued coverage. If your only argument for keeping is the aforementioned, then clearly one could create hundreds of articles on non-notable passenger flights on the sole basis that they received coverage for less than a week and had a final report published. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Of course I've cited policy - the article as written meets WP:GNG as it was a plane crash on a commercially scheduled flight which resulted in fatalities, which received international coverage. The only reason to delete this is if WP:NOT applies, and I don't think it does - the nature of the event and the location of the event means follow-up coverage is likely to be local and in a language other than English, and the nature of this specific crash means that deleting it would further implicit WP:BIAS by excluding plane crashes from parts of the world where finding coverage is difficult, even if the crash which would otherwise be notable. Your other argument is wrong as well - this is very different from a general aviation crash in the United States, so keeping this wouldn't open any floodgates. SportingFlyer T·C 06:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Existence is not notability so the fact that a plane crashed, wherever in the world, is not proof of notability unless the sources demonstrate so. Your comment only precised "scheduled passenger flight" which basically applies to any type of aircraft that provides that service. Sudan is a country that speaks english and arabic, so that already makes it easier to search for sources, and the mere statement that there could be sources does not establish notability unless you actually give sources that provide significant and in-depth coverage after the initial aftermath of the plane crash instead of saying that "finding coverage is difficult". It doesn't matter whether or not a deletion would further implicit bias. So instead of citing WP:BIAS, which does not trump notability guidelines, please provide us with these notability-establishing source. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::The article has already established notability with the sources in the article, we're just discussing WP:NOT. I disagree with you strongly here, and arguing further won't change anything. SportingFlyer T·C 16:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep – I agree with SportingFlyer. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 18:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep – meets WP:GNG for me. C679 10:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - Meets notability based on existing sourcing, as spelled out by SportingFlyer in detail above. nf utvol (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:Delete no idea what everyone else here saw but the sourcing present is not adequate to pass WP:NEVENT, it is neither lasting nor in depth nor anything we look for. A remote part of the world does not preclude the non-existence of secondary sourcing. GNG is not passed because all sources are primary. There is not a single secondary source in this article! PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Reopened and relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 February 5.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to either Tarco Aviation or List of accidents and incidents involving the Antonov An-24. Both articles have information about this crash. All refs in this article are from the time of the accident (although the first, the Aviation Herald, was updated to include info from the final report). I have found no further coverage. This incident does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:EVENT, but a redirect may be a good WP:ATD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Reference 1 is a comprehensive, contextualising, reliable independent secondary source. References 2-4 establish worldwide interest. The expectation for sustained coverage is suitable for nebulous events, not really for a well defined isolated plane crash where by the release of the final report, everything that can be known is known. All commercial passenger plane crashes that result in deaths and destruction of the plane should be considered notable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Why should it be? Not every incident that kills people is notable, like every single act of mass murder is not notable. Not trying to be rude, but IMO that comes off like a slippery slope. If we can just assert that anything that doesn't meet the guidelines should be notable, then why are we here? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::“Slippery slope” is a logical fallacy. If you allow slippery slope arguments to be used, every concern becomes insurmountable.
• ::I submit that every commercial passenger plane crash that kills passengers is notable.
• ::Further, for this deadly commercial passenger aircraft crash, the GNG is met. The GNG does not require sustained coverage.
• ::We are here because this is a near-borderline case.
• ::I don’t think planecrashes are well covered by WP:EVENT. They do not fit with most of what’s covered by WP:EVENT. Therefore, or the subsections of WP:EVENT should be taken as dubious to apply. One good reason is that the final report of a plane crash is often thoroughly complete. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::I do not agree. Why should it be? Accidents happen. It does not pass the GNG because these are all primary sources. That something is complete does not make it notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Eh - something like [https://www.dabangasudan.org/ar/all-news/article/%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%AC%D9%88%D9%86-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%B7%D9%85-%D8%B7%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%B2%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%AC%D9%8A-%D9%8A%D9%83%D8%B4%D9%81%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%81 this] is clearly primary, the sources in the article are news stories but they're all reporting what others have reported. SportingFlyer T·C 02:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::They are not all primary sources. Ref1 has combined formation from other sources and added contextualisation to the facts. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::I don't see how The Aviation Herald isn't a primary source. It just regurgitates information from primary sources without adding any {{Tq|analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis}} to it. Aviation accidents involving commercial airliners aren't inherently notable just because they happened. They are still subject to notability guidelines and this one is no exception. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::It combines primary sources with contextualisation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::There's a bit of contextualisation, however, the source doesn't contain any "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis" that would make it a secondary source. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Merge with List of accidents and incidents involving the Antonov An-24. While I'm mindful of WP:BIAS, I have to agree with Aviationwikiflight's assessment of the article as WP:EVENTCRIT. This accident, though unfortunate, does not seem to have enough enduring historical significance to warrant a standalone article.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep The sourcing in the article is comprehensive and has a worldwide scope. Meets the expectations of WP:GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect. Fails NEVENT. While I'm a big AV Herald fan, it is still a blog that largely just repeats official, primary reports without providing any actual analysis or wider context, especially for final updates. It's not evidence of sustained coverage, which is still very lacking. I'll note that NEVENT is what we have to meet here for notability, not just GNG, as NEVENT includes protections against NOTNEWS. JoelleJay (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Do you have a redirect target in mind? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Additional sources I've found in Arabic: [https://www.alnilin.com/13322699.htm] lists it as "prominent aviation accident"; [https://www.alnilin.com/485021.htm this] features a paragraph on the crash; [https://www.aljazeera.net/news/2012/10/8/%D9%85%D9%82%D8%AA%D9%84-15-%D8%B9%D8%B3%D9%83%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D8%A8%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%B7%D9%85-%D8%B7%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A9 this] mentions the crash. There are many other mentions in Arabic, especially in Sudanese media, showing it was a crash of note, but it's difficult for me to search for since it's not a language I know and have to rely on machine translation. SportingFlyer T·C 02:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per the references provided by SportingFlyer, which pass WP:GNG and WP:LASTING, and establish notability as a standalone page. Frank Anchor 16:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• :None of the sources presented contain significant coverage of the event. [https://www.alnilin.com/13322699.htm This] is just a timeline of aviation accidents in Sudan (no significant coverage); [https://www.alnilin.com/485021.htm This] is more of a discussion on Sudan's aviation profile following the [https://www.alnilin.com/485021.htm] the 2012 Talodi Antonov An-26 crash and only features a small paragraph of this accident without providing significant coverage. Just like the first source, [https://www.aljazeera.net/news/2012/10/8/مقتل-15-عسكريا-بتحطم-طائرة-سودانية this] is just a timeline of aviation accidents in Sudan (no significant coverage). None of these sources contribute to WP:GNG. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Admin note: Per WP:REOPEN, I have undone a second non-admin closure of this AfD by {{u|Insillaciv}}. As has become clear in the DRV discussion linked to above, this is a close and contentious AfD, which needs an experienced admin to close, and not a user with fewer than 1,000 edits. Please let an administrator close this AfD. Sandstein 15:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• :@Sandstein sure! Thank you! Insillaciv (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Seems to be well sourced, with enough mentions in later articles to pass the lasting criteria WP:NEVENT, especially considering that the Sudanese air transport authorities based future safety recommendations on the crash. Though there isn't *much* coverage after the event, it does exist. I would err on the side of keep to avoid WP:BIAS against events with little English language sourcing. If a Redirect is deemed to be appropriate, I would recommend the Accidents and Incident section of Zalingei Airport. nf utvol (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.